Shade provision and its influence on water intake and drinking behaviour of Nellore cattle in feedlot in a tropical environment

M Jordana Rivero; Julio C Pascale Palhares; Taisla Inara Novelli; Luciane Silva Martello; Simón Pérez-Márquez; Andrew S Cooke

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0331238

. 2025 Sep 12;20(9):e0331238. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0331238

Shade provision and its influence on water intake and drinking behaviour of Nellore cattle in feedlot in a tropical environment

M Jordana Rivero ^1,^*, Julio C Pascale Palhares ², Taisla Inara Novelli ³, Luciane Silva Martello ³, Simón Pérez-Márquez ¹, Andrew S Cooke ⁴

Editor: Juan J Loor⁵

PMCID: PMC12431413 PMID: 40938820

Abstract

Heat stress is a significant challenge in tropical beef production systems, affecting feed intake, water intake, and overall animal welfare. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of shade provision on the water intake and drinking behaviour of Nellore steers (Bos indicus) in a tropical feedlot environment. A total of 47 steers (~450 kg body weight) were allocated into two groups: one with access to shade (+S) and another without (-S). Individual water intake, drinking behaviour (e.g., frequency, daily patters), and animal performance were monitored over 83 days using automated recording systems. Results showed that -S steers consumed 8% more water per day (p < 0.001), made more frequent visits to the water trough (p < 0.001), but drank less per visit (p < 0.001) and overall spend 39% more time per day drinking (p < 0.001) compared to the + S steers. Despite these differences in drinking behaviour, average daily gain and feed intake did not differ between groups (p > 0.05). Environmental factors like temperature, humidity, and solar radiation affected water intake in both groups. Higher air temperatures increased water intake by boosting drinking frequency, while higher relative humidity reduced water intake by decreasing visit frequency. Shade provision reduced water demand per unit of body weight gain, improving water-use efficiency. These findings suggest that while shade may not directly enhance body weight gain, it can optimise drinking behaviour, reduce water intake, and improve animal welfare in tropical beef production systems.

Introduction

The rise in global average temperatures poses a major threat to livestock production [1]. Heat stress in cattle causes decreases in feed intake, growth, and efficiency, and threats animal health and welfare. In extreme cases, heat stress can cause death of vulnerable animals [2]. Feedlot cattle are susceptible to heat stress, which can negatively impact their performance and overall wellbeing. This issue is particularly prevalent in tropical climates, where high temperatures can lead to reduced feed intake and increased respiratory rates due to elevated thermal loads [3,4]. Nearly half of the world’s beef production comes from tropical and subtropical regions, and the implementation of best management practices for sustainable resource management is of global significance [5].

Cattle use evaporative cooling to dissipate heat load. However, this process increases their need to consume water to maintain homeostasis [6], therefore increasing the demand for water of the production systems. Shade reduces heat load and the need for evaporative cooling and water replenishment [7]. Artificial shade is in the forefront of environmental modifications to mitigate the negative impacts of heat stress and to improve welfare of beef cattle [8], particularly in tropical environments [9]. With increasing heat stress, cattle exhibit more changes in physiology and behavioural strategies related to heat dissipation, leading to greater competition for shade and water [10]. Therefore, heat stress affects not only water intake (WI) and access to shade but also drinking behaviour (e.g., number of visits to the water troughs) and daily WI patterns. For instance, cattle without access to shade spend more time near water troughs and visit them more frequently, increasing antagonistic interactions and reducing the time spent on more productive activities, such as ruminating or resting, compared to animals with shade access [10]. Factors influencing drinking behaviour include water source and availability, water quality, and environmental conditions. Drinking behaviour can, in turn, impact animal performance and WI as well as animal welfare; understanding the relationships among these factors is essential for designing water systems for grazing and feedlot cattle [11]. However, there is little agreement in the literature regarding the main drivers of WI and, consequently, drinking behaviour. It was hypothesised that access to shade would reduce WI under tropical conditions and modify the drinking behaviour and daily drinking patterns of feedlot cattle, and that these changes would be driven by weather conditions. Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare the effects of access to shade versus no access to shade of Bos indicus steers in a feedlot located in tropical conditions on daily WI and patterns, drinking behaviour and animal performance.

Materials and methods

The spring season experiment took place from September 2019 to December 2019 at the Experimental Feedlot of Embrapa Southeast Livestock in Sao Carlos, Sao Paulo, Brazil (21° 57′ 42″ S, 47° 50′ 28″ W, 860 m height above mean sea level). No permission was required to carry out this research since Embrapa is a research institution. All procedures adopted were approved by the Animal Use Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Animal Science and Food Engineering at USP (CEUA/FZEA), which certified the use of animals in accordance with protocol No. 5011140119. The study area has a tropical climate classified as Cwa according to Köttek et al. [12]. To characterise heat stress risk, minimum, maximum and mean dry bulb temperature (DBT), black globe temperature (BGT), relative humidity (RH, %), wind speed (WS, m/s), solar radiation (SR, W/m²) and rainfall (mm) were automatically recorded every hour, 24 hours a day, by the Embrapa weather station. The DBT and RH were used to calculate the temperature-humidity index (THI) according to the following equation: THI = 0.8 × DBT + [(RH/100) × (DBT − 14.4)] + 46.4 [13,14].

Forty-eight 22-month-old Nellore steers (B. indicus), with an average body weight (BW) of 450 kg, were initially included in the study. However, one animal was removed due to a leg injury, leaving a total of 47 animals for the experiment. The remaining animals were divided into two groups: one group with shade (+S) and another group without shade (-S). After an adaptation period of 11 days, steers were housed in four collective pens (400 m² each, 20 m x 20 m) (Fig 1), with 12 steers in three pens and 11 steers in the fourth pen, for a total of 83 days. Each of the four groups was randomly allocated to one of the four pens. Their BW were measured at the beginning of the adaptation period, then after 21 d, and at the end of the experimental period (just before being sent to the abattoir). The BW at the beginning of the experimental period was estimated assuming a linear growth between the first (beginning of acclimatation period) and the second (10 days after the experimental period started) weighing events.

During the experiment, the animals had unrestricted access to water and a total mixed ration. Feed delivery was ad libitum and adjusted daily to minimise refusals for the following day. The water used in the study was sourced from a well. Meals were provided at 07:00, 11:00, 14:00, and 16:00 hours daily. The diet composition included sugarcane bagasse, soybean, dry corn grain, and a mineral mix (Table 1).

Table 1. Feeds composition and nutritional value of the diet fed to Nellore steers with and without access to shade finished in feedlot during spring in a tropical environment.

Feed ingredient	Proportion of the total mixed diet (g/kg DM)
Sugarcane bagasse	144
Soybean	58
Dry corn grain	739
Mineral mix	59
Nutritional component	% of DM (mean ± SEM)
Crude protein	16.6 ± 2.44
Neutral detergent fibre	24.2 ± 2.88
Acid detergent fibre	13.3 ± 3.04
Ether extract	2.5 ± 0.56
Lignin	2.0 ± 0.56
Ash	6.36 ± 0.52
Neutral detergent insoluble nitrogen	0.28 ± 0.04
Acid detergent insoluble nitrogen	0.24 ± 0.02
In vitro digestibility (%)	78.9 ± 3.78

Open in a new tab

The monitoring of individual WI was carried out using the Intergado™ System (Intergado Ltd., Contagem, Minas Gerais, Brazil). This system employs radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology to track individual cattle and water flow meters installed in the troughs to precisely measure the volume of water consumed during each drinking event. The water troughs, designed and sized by Intergado Ltd., were tailored to the drinking behaviour of beef cattle, ensuring sufficient access and capacity in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. One water trough was placed in the sunny part of each pen.

Feed intake was measured using the GrowSafe™ system (GrowSafe Ltd., Calgary, Alberta, Canada). This system employs RFID technology to monitor individual cattle and records feed consumption through load cells integrated into the feeding bunks, which continuously weigh the feed to determine intake during each feeding event. Two GrowSafe™ units were available per pen, located under a small roof (Figs 1–4). Periodic feed samples (~weekly, i.e., every time a new batch of sugarcane bagasse was introduced) were collected from the feed troughs and dried in a forced-air oven at 65 °C for 72 hours to determine the dry matter (DM) content. The resulting value (mean ± standard deviation: 84.0 ± 3.24%) was used for calculating the daily DM intake (DMI) of each animal. Dried samples were analysed for nutritional composition (DM basis); the lab values are presented in Table 1.

To provide shade for the animals, an artificial structure was constructed with dimensions of 9 m × 8 m (i.e., 72 m²), oriented in the East-West direction (Fig 4). The shade material used was a thermo-reflective aluminised mesh that reflects ultraviolet and infrared rays. The shade structure was designed based on reference values of 6 m² per animal and a height of 3 m [2,15]. The manufacturer specifications ensure 78–83% shade and 32% diffused light transmission.

The BW recorded was used to calculate the individual average daily gain (ADG, kg/d) during the experimental period, whereas the datasets from the Intergado System allowed to calculate the variables: individual WI, measured daily (L/d) and over the total period (83-d), water consumed per visit to the water trough (L/visit), number of visits to the water troughs (with consumption) per day, time spent drinking per day (s/d), visit (to the water trough) duration (s/visit) and WI rate (L/min). Additionally, WI was expressed per kg ADG (L/kg ADG), in litres consumed as a percentage of BW, and per kg DMI (L/kg DM). The mean, median, coefficient of variation (CV, %) and standard error of the mean across days was calculated using the average value calculated across the animals of each group.

The 47 individual animals were considered the experimental units and the groups compared were +S and -S. Data on animal performance and WI variables were analysed using paired Wilcox signed rank tests that compared the mean values for a variable (e.g., WI) of each group on each day. A zero-inflated Poisson model was used to assess the effects of time of day, treatment group, and their interaction on hourly WI, accounting for excess zeroes in the data. Differences between means of +S and -S were considered significant at α < 0.05. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated between the daily mean of weather variables and the daily mean of the response variables for each group, with a Bonferroni adjustment applied to account for multiple (78) comparisons. Data were analysed with R-Studio (2023.09.1) using the package ‘stats’ [16] and ‘pscl’ [17]. The package ‘ggplot2’ [18], in combination with package ‘Cairo’ [19], was used to create figures.

Results

Environmental variables

Average mean DBT across the 83-d experimental period was 22.9 °C (ranged from 16.6 and 27.5 °C), whereas that recorded inside the BGT was 25.7 °C (ranged from 16.8 to 30.3 °C) (Fig. 5). Average minimum and maximum temperature were 17.8 and 29.1 °C, respectively. Average RH was 70.8% (ranged from 25.8 to 99.5%) and the average WS was 2.7 m/s (ranged from 0.8 to 6.1 m/s), whereas average SR was 245 W/m² (ranged from 23.3 to 352 W/m²). Hence, the average THI was 69.9 (ranged from 61.9 to 78.4), with each day averaging 12 h of THI values above 70 and 4.6 h above 75. None of the days showed any 15-min value with THI above 80. The accumulated rainfall during the four 21-d periods were 39.4, 33.0, 116.4 and 99.8 mm, respectively.

Fig 5 — Top left: Air temperature and black globe temperature (°C). Top right: Relative humidity (%) and rainfall (mm). Middle left: Wind speed (m/s). Middle right: solar radiation (W/m²). Bottom: Temperature humidity index (THI). Shaded areas represent 95% confidence.

Animal performance

Initial, medium, and final BW did not differ between steers with (+S) and without (-S) access to shade (p > 0.05), averaging 477 ± 3.9 kg, 551 ± 4.8 kg, and 591 ± 5.0 kg, respectively. Consequently, ADG across the experimental period did not vary between groups, averaging 1.43 ± 0.046 kg/d. Dry matter intake did not vary between groups either, averaging 11.6 kg DM/d per animal (p = 0.660) and 2.11% BW (p = 0.276). Therefore, feed conversion ratio did not differ (p = 0.399) between groups either, averaging 8.26 ± 0.285 kg DM/kg BW gained.

Water intake and daily drinking behaviour

Steers in the -S group consumed approximately 8% more water per day on average compared to those in +S (V = 563, p < 0.001) (Table 2). This was characterised by -S animals making nearly one additional visit to the water trough per day (V = 321, p < 0.001), spending 16% more time drinking per visit (V = 48, p < 0.001), and 39% more time drinking per day (V = 5, p < 0.001). Despite this, -S animals consumed 7% less water on each visit to the trough (V = 3344, p < 0.001) due to their 12% lower drinking rate (V = 3479, p < 0.001). The amount of water consumed per kg of ADG was greater (p = 0.025) for the -S (29.6 ± 1.21 L/kg ADG) than that of +S (25.5 ± 1.18 L/kg ADG), representing a 15% increase. Summed across the whole experimental period, -S steers consumed 338 L more (p = 0.031) than those in +S (3267 vs. 2930 L/animal). Hence, the WI:DMI ratio tended (p = 0.053) to be 9% higher in the -S than in the + S group (3.20 ± 0.107 vs 3.50 ± 0.109 L/kg DM). When added together DMI and WI, the -S group had a higher (p = 0.048) combined intake (52.6 ± 1.54 vs 48.2 ± 1.51 kg) than the + S, representing a higher (p = 0.017) percentage of the animals’ BW (9.65% ± 0.278 vs 8.68 ± 0.272). DMI correlated positively with WI (r = 0.48, p < 0.001).

Table 2. Water intake and drinking behaviour in Nellore steers with (+S) and without (-) access to shade finished in feedlot during spring in a tropical environment.

Variable	Mean		Median		Range		CV		SEM		p – value
Shade group	+S	-S	+S	-S	+S	-S	+S	-S	+S	-S
Water intake (L/d)	35.1	38.1	35.0	37.3	24.1-46.9	25.3-63.4	13.5	18.8	1.0	1.6	<0.001
Drinking rate (L/min)	4.2	3.7	4.1	3.4	2.6-7.9	1.5-6.9	32.5	38.4	0.3	0.3	<0.001
Visits per day	4.6	5.5	4.3	5.2	3.0-6.8	2.2-9.2	23.1	26.4	0.2	0.3	<0.001
Water consumed per visit (L/visit)	8.2	7.5	7.8	7.0	5.6-11.4	4.7-11.6	20.5	21.6	0.4	0.4	<0.001
Time spent drinking (s/d)	688	953	663	972	349-1136	317-1823	28.7	41.9	41.1	87.6	<0.001
Visit duration (s/visit)	153	177	153	158	76-247	68-308	25.2	35.8	8.0	14.2	<0.001

Open in a new tab

Mean, median, range, coefficient of variation (CV) and standard error of the mean (SEM) were determined from the mean values for each animal over the study period. p-values were calculated from Wilcox signed rank tests comparing the means of each group on each day.

Notably, across all measured WI variables, variation was greatest among cattle without shade (Table 2). Particularly, the time spent drinking and the visit duration in the -S animals showed a 5–6-fold increase between the minimum and maximum values. The drinking rate also showed a great variability in both groups.

Impact of weather on water intake

Weather impacted drinking behaviour with comparable effects seen across both groups (Fig 6). There was a positive correlation of WI with mean BGT (+S: r_s = 0.617, p < 0.001; -S: r_s = 0.542, p < 0.001) and maximum temperature (+S: r_s = 0.682, p < 0.001; -S: r_s = 0.616, p < 0.001). This was driven by an increase in the number of visits to the water trough per day, as opposed to an increased in water consumed per visit. For both groups, WI was negatively associated with rainfall (+S: r_s = −0.675, p < 0.001; -S: r_s = −0.577, p < 0.001), mean RH (+S: r_s = −0.669, p < 0.001; -S: r_s = − 0.609, p < 0.001) and maximum RH (+S: r_s = −0.709, p < 0.001; -S: r_s = −0.574, p < 0.001). Wind speed had no association with WI variables, however no extreme highs of WS were observed during the study period. Mean SR had a positive association with daily WI (+S: r_s = 0.525, p < 0.001; -S: r_s = 0.515, p < 0.001), whilst maximum SR was positively associated with increased water consumption per visit (+S: r_s = 0.539, p < 0.001; -S: r_s = 0.549, p < 0.001).

Within and between day variation in water intake

Daily drinking patterns varied between treatment groups (Fig 7). Time of day was associated with WI (z = −20.90, p < 0.001), with a general decline in WI as the day progressed. Across both groups, the number of visits to the water troughs was greatest in the mid-late afternoon (~15:00–18:00), although total WI was relatively lower during these periods compared to earlier in the day. There was an interaction effect between time of day and treatment group (z = 4.37, p < 0.001), indicating that -S steers exhibited a greater temporal variation in their drinking patterns, while +S steers drank more consistently throughout the day. Additionally, the likelihood of having zero drinking events decreased as the day progressed (z = −25.80, p < 0.001), suggesting that animals were less likely to have no drinking events later in the day.

Over the course of the study, for both groups, the number of visits per day gradually declined (Fig 8). However, the water consumed per visit increased over the same time (Fig 9), resulting in only a slight reduction in WI over the study period (Fig 10), though this trend was highly variable.

Fig 9 — Mean intake (L) of water per visit, by group, across the study period. Green points are animals with shade (+S) and orange are those without (-S). Shading around trend lines represent 95% confidence.

Fig 10 — Mean daily water intake per animal, by group, across the study period. Green points are animals with shade (+S) and orange are those without (-S). Shading around trend lines represent 95% confidence.

Discussion

Water intake and shade

Drinking behaviour of Nellore steers varied based on whether the cattle had access to shade or not. Those with shade drank less frequently but drank more per visit, than those without shade. The combined effect was that cattle with shade drank less per day than those without. These results highlight how environmental modifications can impact the thermoregulatory strategies of cattle and may inform management strategies for heat stress. Whilst these results are broadly consistent with the literature, one novel finding was that cattle with shade typically loaded with water earlier in the day, whilst those without drank at a more consistent rate. Despite being exposed to warm conditions, with the majority of days experiencing a THI above 70 (even at nighttime), and an average BGT about 3 °C above the DBT, the animals grew at a good rate, comparable to values reported for Nellore cattle in feedlots under similar conditions [20–23] and with similar DMI levels when expressed as a percentage of BW [20,22,24]. This finding aligns with other research that suggests shade may not always impact growth performance, even though it reduces WI [25,26]. The lack of differences in DMI and ADG between the groups in our study could be attributed to the fact that drinking water was sufficient for thermoregulation, allowing the animals to maintain feed intake and growth rates despite the differences in heat stress levels. Additionally, it has been reported that Nellore cattle have the ability to adjust their body metabolism to the adverse environmental conditions during the day, especially in the semi-arid tropical regions [25].

The differences in drinking behaviour may be attributed to heat load. Shade reduces heat load and the need for evaporative cooling and water replenishment [7]. Our results are consistent with the literature [7,27], indicating that shade plays a vital role in reducing water demand. Daily WI reported in our study (35.1 L/d [6.8% BW] for +S and 37.9 L/d [7.3% BW] for -S) were broadly consistent with literature on Nellore cattle; for example, Zanetti et al. [28] reported an intake of 6.5% BW for 299-kg animals. Animals in +S had two options to use their environment to thermoregulate, i.e., water ingestion or use of shaded area; however, animals in -S only had access to water. Thermoregulation through shade use is likely the primary strategy when SR significantly contributes to heat stress, reducing the need for thermoregulation by WI.

Drinking behaviour and daily patterns

Feedlot cattle most actively drink between 0600 and 2100 h [11,29], which agrees with our findings. When cattle have access to shade they remain there during the hottest hours of the day, leaving shade only when looking for water or at the end of the day. In our study, shaded animals exhibited distinct drinking patterns, consuming more water per visit but less frequently, particularly during cooler hours of the day, which aligns with their adaptation to minimise heat stress during peak temperatures. This adaptation can be explained by the lower water search frequency observed in animals with shade, which is also associated with the milder microclimate created by shade [30], and a reduced incidence of direct SR. The faster drinking rate of shaded animals could indicate that they prioritised efficiency, drinking more in less time. This behaviour allowed them to optimise time for feeding and resting, reducing exposure to heat, since cattle with access to shade optimise their drinking behaviour, allowing them to spend less time near water sources and more time engaged in productive activities like ruminating [10], and grazing, particularly during peak hours than cattle with no access to shade [31]. These differences in behavioural activities are larger when THI is above the bovine comfort zone over 24 h [31]. In our study, the frequency of visits in the peak hours seems not to differ between +S and -S groups, but the amount of water consumed per visit in the morning was greater in the + S; this could imply that steers with access to shade consumed most of their water outside the peak hours by drinking faster an in fewer occasions to dedicate more time to eat and laydown in the colder hours of the day.

Environmental factors affecting drinking behavior

As the severity of heat stress increases, cattle exhibit increasingly more changes in physiological and behavioural attributes related to heat dissipation, increasing competition for shade and water to the point where the benefits outweigh the costs [10]. For instance, time spent drinking increases with THI, but the rate of increase is more than two-fold in animals without access to shade [32]. Maximum shade utilisation of cattle occurs when levels of SR exceed 800 W/m² [9]. Applying the probability distribution proposed by Maia et al. [9] and considering that, in our study, several days had SR values above 300 W/m², this would imply that around 50% of the animals would look for shade in the morning and around 75% in the afternoon. Rain could be another factor influencing animal behaviour. In our study, the rainy days had an average maximum DBT 3.2 °C lower and a BGT 2.7 °C lower than the days with no rain (see raw data files [33]). In rainy days, the animals in -S decreased they daily WI by 9.1 L/d while the ones in +S decreased it only by 6.4 L/d, while both groups decreased the number of daily visits to the water troughs by around 1 and increased the visit duration by 30 seconds (see raw data files [33]). One potential explanation for this reduced WI and visits could be due to the reduced level of overall activity in rainy days [9]. Another reason could be the milder temperatures experimented in rainy days. When comparing three days with rain and three days without rain with a similar average BGT (~21.5 °C), we found that the daily WI was similar within the -S and the + S groups (around 33.4 and 31.3 L/d, respectively) but with ~0.6 more daily visits on the days with no rain for -S (4.9 v 5.4) and +S (4.2 vs 4.9) (see raw data files [33]), which would support the idea that the rain, in addition to create milder conditions, also reduced the level of activity of the animals. When comparing the three warmest days (BGT = 30.2 °C, no rain) with the three coldest days (BGT = 18.0 °C, rain), animals in -S increased their WI by 18 L/d, while the ones in +S increased 13.6 L/d, whereas both groups increased their daily visits by around 1.2 (see raw data files [33]). This would suggest that the animals in -S increased their drinking rate in hot days in comparison with those in +S. Water temperature increases linearly with DBT (R² = 0.95) [9]; thus, warmer water in very hot days may affect drinking behaviour. However, given that the water troughs in our study had a maximum capacity of 50 L, the water renewal rate was higher than that of traditional water troughs, which resulted in animals having fresher water. Ultimately, WI (both free and in feed) is driven by multiple factors, including BW, ADG, feed characteristics, and environmental conditions, resulting in high variability. Wagner and Engle [11] reported, for finishing cattle of 544 kg (median of 551 kg in our study), a demand of 53.4–61.3 L/d (9.8–11.3% BW) depending on ambient temperature, whilst Lardner et al. [34] found yearling steers of 304 kg to require 42 L/d (13.8% BW).

We aimed to disentangle the effect of weather conditions on drinking behaviour by analysing the relationships between these variables. There is little agreement in the literature as to the main drivers of WI; whilst some studies report maximum DBT to be the main factor [28,35] others report minimum DBT or THI [6], while RH has also been reported as a major contributor to heat stress in hot climates [36]. Our results agree with the former, with maximum DBT strongly correlating to daily WI. Considering that maximum DBT values tend to increase due to global warming [7], this result is important for water planning in cattle feedlots. With regards to RH, whilst we found that is positively correlated with water consumed per visit, the negative relationship it had with the number of visits per day was strong enough that RH had a net negative relationship with overall daily WI.

In tropical climates, rising RH limits the efficiency of evaporative cooling [37], forcing cattle to drink more water to regulate their body temperature. The low average WS recorded in our study could be classified as a light breeze [38], which may have contributed only with a small amount of convection cooling, hence the not significant association with WI or drinking behaviour in our study. This negligible convection cooling potential of the environment due to wind may have increased the need of the animals to dissipate heat through evaporate cooling [39], amplifying the impact of RH in the heat load of the animals and their drinking behaviour, hence the strong correlation between RH and WI and number of visits to the water troughs per day. The overall trend observed over time in the decrease in DBT and the increase in RH would then contribute to explain the overall trend of decreasing the number of visits to the water troughs, the increase in the amount of water consumed per visit and the decrease in the mean daily WI observed as the finishing feedlot phase progressed.

Exposure to SR can increase body temperature, which can lead to increases in daily WI to help regulate body temperature [6]. Consequently, in our study, daily WI increased as SR increased, and, interestingly, steers drank more water per visit as the maximum SR increased. Unexpectedly, THI and maximum THI were not associated with the drinking behaviour (visits per day or water consumed per visit) in our study. Souza et al. [32] found strong correlation between THI and daily WI in hot climate, with THI ranging from 74 to 86, whereas in our study average THI ranged from 61.9 to 78.4. This would suggest that the effect of the THI would be relevant in warm conditions, as shown by the significant correlation of the maximum THI on the amount of water consumed per visit. Interestingly, rain appears as a not important variable to model daily WI [11]. This contrasts with our findings since rainfall was negatively correlated with daily WI, mainly driven by the number of visits.

WI is likely circumstantial and unique to each production system. Because of this, attempts at modelling water demand have had limited success due to the complexity of its drivers, rarely being able to explain much more than 50% of its variance [39]. Furthermore, such attempts have overwhelmingly focussed on Bos taurus. A key distinction to be made in this field is between B. taurus and B. indicus, with the latter subspecies generally being better adapted to tropical and arid environments [40]. Consequently, Nellore cattle have relatively good thermal tolerance up until ~35°C [25]. In our study, animal performance was not affected by access to shade under the environmental conditions, but WI and drinking behaviour were clearly affected, suggesting that the animals needed to display some behavioural changes to cope with hot days. Heat waves are becoming more frequent and intense in tropical regions due to global warming. This may affect not only the drinking behaviour of animals but also their performance. Therefore, studies like this should continue in the face of more adverse climate conditions.

Variability in water intake and drinking behaviour

The substantial individual variability in WI and water-use efficiency among cattle cannot be explained by current models [39]. Some animals have been shown to be more water-efficient, requiring less water per kilogram of BW gained, a trait that is genetically correlated with improved growth performance [39]. Palhares et al. [41] detected the influence of animal performance and productivity on daily WI. This information should be used to propose best practices and support beef systems in regions affected by climate change and water scarcity. In our study, the three top animals ranked by their WI to ADG ratio were 41.7% more efficient (i.e., required less water per kg BW gained) within the + S and 53.8% more efficient within the -S groups (see raw data files [33]) than the three bottom-ranked animals, highlighting the notable individual variability in terms of WI and water use efficiency.

The individual variability can also be explained by the animal-to-animal interactions. Grazing non-lactating dairy cows with the water trough located in the corridor, i.e., with a certain level of restriction of the resource given the distance from the paddock (150 m), showed a greater number of visits per day and time spent drinking for dominant cows in comparison to subordinate cows [42]. It has been stated that dominance rank in groups of animals may result in a few top-ranking individuals getting plenty and the rest little resources, or the majority getting equal distribution and the lowest ranking animals getting very little [43]. In our study, the variables time spent drinking and visit duration in the -S group had the most variability. This would suggest that social hierarchy may have influenced the use of the limited resource (i.e., the only water trough in the pen) at the peak use times causing difference in the time the steers could spent in the water troughs, where dominant animals made greater use of the resource. The size of the shade was enough to cover all the animals in the pen, so hierarchy of the group would not have affected the use of shade.

Nevertheless, cattle are gregarious and, as such, synchronise their activities [44], which may partially explain the daily pattern and variability in water troughs use. It could be inferred that the animals in -S moved to the water troughs on hot days when the heat stress risk was lower, concentrating the drinking events is fewer hours than those in +S, increasing the dominance of high-ranked animals and increasing variability in drinking behaviours between animals. Additionally, the proximity to the water troughs could itself promote WI, contributing to explain even further the higher WI when shade was not available.

Practical implication of providing shade to feedlot cattle

The findings of this study emphasise the importance of providing shade as a welfare intervention for cattle in tropical environments [27]. While shade may not consistently improve cattle performance, it effectively reduces the radiant heat load, lowering body-surface and subcutaneous temperatures, respiration rates, and overall WI [9]. For instance, steers in +S showed a reduction of approximately 12 litres in daily WI during the hottest days compared to the coldest (see raw data files [33]). Beyond physiological benefits, shaded environments enhance cattle comfort, reducing heat stress and improving overall welfare, making shade a practical solution in tropical climates [9]. However, the design of shaded areas must be carefully considered to avoid resource disputes [42]. Selective shading for heat-sensitive breeds can optimise costs and enhance welfare, with studies indicating potential payback within four feeding cycles through improved carcass weights [9]. These findings suggest that, despite the upfront cost of providing shade, the long-term benefits, such as water savings, improved performance, and enhanced animal welfare, make it a worthwhile investment [2]. Furthermore, while initial expenses are involved, shade provision offer sustained advantages, with tree planting additionally supporting nutrition, biodiversity, and carbon storage.

Limitations of the study

The presented study is limited in that the experimental unit within this study was the individual animal, however, individuals were penned in groups. Therefore, it is not possible to entirely rule out group level effects in this study, particularly as cattle are herd animals that do not behave entirely independently of their herd. The issue of pseudoreplication is relatively common across the field of animal science [45–47] and results should be interpreted with consideration of that. Another limiting aspect is that it cannot fully represent the wide variety of factors that potentially impact WI. It also only represents a snapshot of these animals’ lives. When considering a greater range and extreme of variables, or studying an animal’s entire life, the extent and nature of trends observed are likely to differ, one way or another, from those presented here. A key future area of research would be to analyse the long-term effects of shade provision on cattle performance. This could include the additions of mapping shade availability (based on sun position) at a landscape level, cross-referenced with GPS cattle movement data, WI data, weather measurements, and animal health and performance metrics.

Conclusions

This study advances the field by providing novel data on the drinking behaviour and individual intake responses of confined beef cattle to artificial shading under tropical conditions, offering incremental yet critical insights into practical management strategies that enhance animal welfare and productivity in the face of escalating climate challenges. This study demonstrates the substantial impact of environmental factors, particularly shade provision, on the drinking behaviour and thermoregulation strategies of Nellore steers in tropical feedlots. Access to shade altered water intake patterns, allowing steers to drink less frequently but more efficiently per visit, ultimately reducing overall water intake. The findings suggest that cattle with shade adapt by prioritising water intake during cooler times of the day, supporting the idea that shaded environments can effectively help manage heat stress.

Despite variations in drinking behaviour, growth rates and dry matter intake remained similar between shaded and unshaded cattle, evidencing that even under conditions of moderate heat stress Nellore cattle can maintain growth performance without additional cooling interventions. However, the results indicate that while shade did not directly affect growth performance in this study, it served as an essential tool for reducing water intake needs and supporting thermoregulation through behavioural adaptations, which aligns with previous research on the resilience of B. indicus breeds in warmer climates.

Supporting information

S1 File. Supplement A. Spearman’s correlations coefficients and their p-values among all the meteorological variables and the drinking behaviour variables of Nellore steers with and without access to shade in a tropical feedlot.

(XLSX)

pone.0331238.s001.xlsx^{(13.4KB, xlsx)}

S2 File. Inclusivity-in-global-research-questionnaire.

(DOCX)

pone.0331238.s002.docx^{(22.3KB, docx)}

Acknowledgments

Rothamsted Research, Embrapa and Andrew S. Cooke are members of the Global Farm Platform initiative (www.globalfarmplatform.org), a global network collaboratively working towards sustainable ruminant livestock production systems.

Data Availability

The datasets are available at Mendeley Data, DOI: 10.17632/cctgpznjrc.1 (hyperlink: https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/cctgpznjrc/1).

Funding Statement

This research was partially funded by the Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture (ASA) Partnership award “Measuring Sustainability Metrics for Ruminant Livestock Production Systems in Brazil and UK for a global assessment” funded by the Newton Fund. Rothamsted Research receives strategic funding from the Biotechnological and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) of the United Kingdom. Support in writing up the work was greatly received by BBSRC through the strategic program Soil to Nutrition (S2N; BBS/E/C/000I0320) and Growing Health (BB/X010953/1). This work was partially supported Coordenaçao de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brazil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001.

References

1.Mejia Turcios SE, Rotz CA, McGlone J, Rivera CR, Mitloehner FM. Effects of heat stress mitigation strategies on feedlot cattle performance, environmental, and economic outcomes in a hot climate. Animal. 2024;18(11):101257. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2024.101257 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Benefits of Providing Shade to Feedlot Cattle of Different Breeds. TransASABE. 2013;:1563–70. doi: 10.13031/trans.56.9902 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
3.Blaine KL, Nsahlai IV. The effects of shade on performance, carcass classes and behaviour of heat-stressed feedlot cattle at the finisher phase. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2011;43(3):609–15. doi: 10.1007/s11250-010-9740-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Castro-Pérez BI, Estrada-Angulo A, Ríos-Rincón FG, Núñez-Benítez VH, Rivera-Méndez CR, Urías-Estrada JD, et al. The influence of shade allocation or total shade plus overhead fan on growth performance, efficiency of dietary energy utilization, and carcass characteristics of feedlot cattle under tropical ambient conditions. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2020;33(6):1034–41. doi: 10.5713/ajas.19.0112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Malan J-AC, Flint N, Jackson EL, Irving AD, Swain DL. Environmental factors influencing cattle’s water consumption at offstream watering points in rangeland beef cattle. Livestock Science. 2020;231:103868. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2019.103868 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
6.Arias RA, Mader TL. Environmental factors affecting daily water intake on cattle finished in feedlots. J Anim Sci. 2011;89(1):245–51. doi: 10.2527/jas.2010-3014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Collier RJ, Gebremedhin KG. Thermal biology of domestic animals. Annu Rev Anim Biosci. 2015;3:513–32. doi: 10.1146/annurev-animal-022114-110659 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Rivero MJ, Lee MRF. A perspective on animal welfare of grazing ruminants and its relationship with sustainability. Anim Prod Sci. 2022;62(18):1739–48. doi: 10.1071/an21516 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
9.Maia ASC, Moura GAB, Fonsêca VFC, Gebremedhin KG, Milan HM, Chiquitelli Neto M, et al. Economically sustainable shade design for feedlot cattle. Front Vet Sci. 2023;10:1110671. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1110671 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Vizzotto EF, Fischer V, Thaler Neto A, Abreu AS, Stumpf MT, Werncke D, et al. Access to shade changes behavioral and physiological attributes of dairy cows during the hot season in the subtropics. Animal. 2015;9(9):1559–66. doi: 10.1017/S1751731115000877 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Wagner JJ, Engle TE. Invited Review: Water consumption, and drinking behavior of beef cattle, and effects of water quality. Applied Animal Science. 2021;37(4):418–35. doi: 10.15232/aas.2021-02136 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
12.Ellerström C, Strehl R, Moya K, Andersson K, Bergh C, Lundin K, et al. Derivation of a xeno-free human embryonic stem cell line. Stem Cells. 2006;24(10):2170–6. doi: 10.1634/stemcells.2006-0130 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Livestock hot weather stress. Reg Operations Manual Lett C-31–76. US Govt: US Dept Commerce, Natl Weather Serv Central Reg. 1976. [Google Scholar]
14.Thom EC. The Discomfort Index. Weatherwise. 1959;12(2):57–61. doi: 10.1080/00431672.1959.9926960 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
15.Eirich R, Griffin D, Brown-Brandl T, Eigenberg R, Mader T, Mayer J. Feedlot heat stress information and management guide. 2015. [Google Scholar]
16.Team RDC. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2010. [Google Scholar]
17.Jackman S. Pscl: classes and methods for R developed in the political science computational laboratory. Sydney, New South Wales, Australia: United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney. 2017. [Google Scholar]
18.Wickham H, Sievert C. ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer New York. 2009. [Google Scholar]
19.Urbanek S, Horner J. Cairo: R graphics device using cairo graphics library for creating high-quality bitmap (PNG, JPEG, TIFF), vector (PDF, SVG, PostScript) and display (X11 and Win32) output. 2020. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=CairoR [Google Scholar]
20.Costa CF, Brichi ALC, Millen DD, Goulart RS, Pereira IC, Estevam DD, et al. Feedlot performance, carcass characteristics and meat quality of Nellore bulls and steers fed Zilpaterol hydrochloride. Livestock Science. 2019;227:166–74. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2019.07.017 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
21.de Figueiredo Moura JR, Ítavo LCV, Ítavo CCBF, Dias AM, Dos Santos Difante G, Dos Santos GT, et al. Prediction models of intake and productive performance of non-castrated Nellore cattle finished in the feedlot system under tropical conditions. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2023;55(2):64. doi: 10.1007/s11250-023-03488-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Silva TIS, Souza JM, Acedo TS, Carvalho VV, Perdigão A, Silva LAF, et al. Feedlot performance, rumen and cecum morphometrics of Nellore cattle fed increasing levels of diet starch containing a blend of essential oils and amylase or monensin. Front Vet Sci. 2023;10:1090097. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1090097 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Silvestre AMM, Squizatti MM, Demartini BL, Felizari LD, Silva TIS, Pinto ACJJ, et al. PSXIII-14 Feedlot performance of Nellore cattle consuming diets containing high-moisture corn, calcium salts of fatty acids and organic minerals. Journal of Animal Science. 2021;99(Supplement_3):465–6. doi: 10.1093/jas/skab235.825 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
24.Estevam DD, Pereira IC, Rigueiro ALN, Perdigão A, da Costa CF, Rizzieri RA, et al. Feedlot performance and rumen morphometrics of Nellore cattle adapted to high-concentrate diets over periods of 6, 9, 14 and 21 days. Animal. 2020;14(11):2298–307. doi: 10.1017/S1751731120001147 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Ferreira RA. Maior produção com melhor ambiente para aves, suínos e bovinos. Aprenda Fácil Editora. 2005. [Google Scholar]
26.Novelli TI, Bium BF, Biffi CHC, Picharillo ME, de Souza NS, de Medeiros SR, et al. Consumption, productivity and cost: Three dimensions of water and their relationship with the supply of artificial shading for beef cattle in feedlots. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2022;376:134088. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134088 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
27.Ferro DADC, Arnhold E, Bueno CP, Miyagi ES, Ferro RADC, Silva BPAD. Performance of Nellore males under different artificial shading levels in the feedlot. Semin Cienc Agrar. 2016;37: 2623. doi: 10.5433/1679-0359.2016v37n4supl1p2623 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
28.Zanetti D, Prados LF, Menezes ACB, Silva BC, Pacheco MVC, Silva FAS, et al. Prediction of water intake to Bos indicus beef cattle raised under tropical conditions1. J Anim Sci. 2019;97(3):1364–74. doi: 10.1093/jas/skz003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Pires BV, Reolon HG, Abduch NG, Souza LL, Sakamoto LS, Mercadante MEZ, et al. Effects of Feeding and Drinking Behavior on Performance and Carcass Traits in Beef Cattle. Animals (Basel). 2022;12(22):3196. doi: 10.3390/ani12223196 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Giro A, Pezzopane JRM, Barioni Junior W, Pedroso A de F, Lemes AP, Botta D, et al. Behavior and body surface temperature of beef cattle in integrated crop-livestock systems with or without tree shading. Sci Total Environ. 2019;684:587–96. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.377 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Palacio S, Bergeron R, Lachance S, Vasseur E. The effects of providing portable shade at pasture on dairy cow behavior and physiology. J Dairy Sci. 2015;98(9):6085–93. doi: 10.3168/jds.2014-8932 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Souza ECD, Salman AKD, Cruz PGD, Veit HM, Carvalho GAD, Silva FRFD, et al. Thermal comfort and grazing behavior of Girolando heifers in integrated crop-livestock (ICL) and crop-livestock-forest (ICLF) systems. Acta Sci. 2019;41:46483. doi: 10.4025/actascianimsci.v41i1.46483 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
33.Rivero MJ, Palhares J, Novelli T, Martello L, Perez-Marquez S, Cooke AS. Data on: Shade provision and its influence on water consumption and drinking behaviour of Nellore cattle in feedlot in a tropical environment. 2025. 10.17632/cctgpznjrc.1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
34.Lardner HA, Braul L, Schwartzkopf-Genswein K, Schwean-Lardner K, Damiran D, Darambazar E. Consumption and drinking behavior of beef cattle offered a choice of several water types. Livestock Science. 2013;157(2–3):577–85. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2013.08.016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
35.Parker DB, Perino LP, Auvermann BW, Sweeten JM. Water use and conservation at Texas high plains beef cattle feedyards. Appl Eng Agric. 2000;16: 77–82. doi: 1013031/2013.4986 [Google Scholar]
36.Blackshaw J, Blackshaw A. Heat stress in cattle and the effect of shade on production and behaviour: a review. Aust J Exp Agric. 1994;34(2):285. doi: 10.1071/ea9940285 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
37.Silanikove N. Effects of heat stress on the welfare of extensively managed domestic ruminants. Livestock Production Science. 2000;67(1–2):1–18. doi: 10.1016/s0301-6226(00)00162-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
38.Office M. Beaufort wind force scale. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/guides/coast-and-sea/beaufort-scale. 2024.
39.Ahlberg CM, Allwardt K, Broocks A, Bruno K, McPhillips L, Taylor A, et al. Environmental effects on water intake and water intake prediction in growing beef cattle. J Anim Sci. 2018;96(10):4368–84. doi: 10.1093/jas/sky267 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Singh AK, Bhakat C, Singh P. A review on water intake in dairy cattle: associated factors, management practices, and corresponding effects. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2022;54(2):154. doi: 10.1007/s11250-022-03154-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Palhares JCP, Morelli M, Novelli TI. Water footprint of a tropical beef cattle production system: The impact of individual-animal and feed management. Advances in Water Resources. 2021;149:103853. doi: 10.1016/j.advwatres.2021.103853 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
42.Coimbra PAD, Machado Filho LCP, Hötzel MJ. Effects of social dominance, water trough location and shade availability on drinking behaviour of cows on pasture. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2012;139(3–4):175–82. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2012.04.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
43.Lindberg AC. Group life. Social Behaviour in Farm Animals. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing. 2001. [Google Scholar]
44.Broom DM, Fraser AF. Domestic animal behaviour and welfare. 6th ed. Oxfordshire: CABI. 2010. [Google Scholar]
45.Smid A-MC, Burnett TA, Madureira AML, McLellan KJ, Wegner CS, von Keyserlingk MAG, et al. Access to an outdoor open pack promotes estrus activity in dairy cows. PLoS One. 2024;19(8):e0308182. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0308182 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46.Sadrzadeh N, Foris B, Krahn J, von Keyserlingk MAG, Weary DM. Automated monitoring of brush use in dairy cattle. PLoS One. 2024;19(6):e0305671. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305671 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47.Napolitano F, Serrapica M, Braghieri A, Claps S, Serrapica F, De Rosa G. Can we monitor adaptation of juvenile goats to a new social environment through continuous qualitative behaviour assessment?. PLoS One. 2018;13(7):e0200165. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200165 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0331238.r001

Decision Letter 0

Juan Loor

17 Mar 2025

-->PONE-D-25-07671-->-->Shade provision and its influence on water consumption and drinking behaviour of Nellore cattle in feedlot in a tropical environment-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rivero,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 01 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Juan J Loor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met. Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

3. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

4. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

“This research was partially funded by the Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture (ASA) Partnership award “Measuring Sustainability Metrics for Ruminant Livestock Production Systems in Brazil and UK for a global assessment” funded by the Newton Fund. Rothamsted Research receives strategic funding from the Biotechnological and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) of the United Kingdom. Support in writing up the work was greatly received by BBSRC through the strategic program Soil to Nutrition (S2N; BBS/E/C/000I0320) and Growing Health (BB/X010953/1). This work was partially supported Coordenaçao de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brazil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001.”

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. In the online submission form, you indicated that “Provisionally, the data underlying the results presented in the study are available from Jordana Rivero (jordana.rivero.visiting@rothamsted.ac.uk) .”

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

7. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

8. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

9. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

-->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

-->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

-->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: The authors describe drinking behaviour of beef cattle with/without shade availability, a topic that has not been well researched despite close links with welfare and, therefore, is of high importance considering rising temperatures due to global warming. The article is in general well written. However, there is a lack of consistency in wording that needs to be addressed and authors provide only n=2 per group which is a very small sample size. In many cases it is unclear if values are calculated per pen or per animal, this must be more transparent.

It is described that in heat animals start to play with water instead of drinking – how did you ensure to measure intake or consumption?

For me, the dataset is this small, that I suggest to change the original research article into a short communication.

L17 Please move “steers” before brackets : Nellow Steers (Bos indicus)

L19 rephrase to “allocated in two groups”

L 26 Hard to read, please shorten or split in two sentences: Environmental factors such as Air temperature, humidity, and solar radiation influenced water intake in both groups, with higher air temperatures increasing water intake due to greater drinking frequency and higher relative humidity reducing water intake by decreasing visit frequency.

L29 water demand, not requirements – please pay attention to wording consistency throughout the manuscript

L38 please also indicate the threat of heat stress for animal health and welfare

L42 space lacks at the end of the sentence before bracktes with source

L46 Cattle use evaporative cooling to dissipate heat load. However, evaporative cooling increases the cattle´s need for water to maintain homeostasis [6], consequently

increasing the demand of the production systems.

L59 please delete water before drinking behavior and in the following text. Generally maintain the same phrase (drinking behavior OR water drinking behavior, better drinking behavior; water intake OR water consumption, better water consumption)

L83 months, not mo.

L88 May not an unequal number of animals per group per see affect outcomes as drinking frequencies, behaviors etc ? Did you check your data regarding a potential effect of access per animal?

L98 Please provide, if possible, any information of the wells´ water quality

L103 water consumed instead of drunk, please change through the whole document

How was water consumption measures? Which devices were used, how were the water trough sized?

L119 (“W)

Fig 1: Provide the size of pens in the figure, it would additionally be desirable to have a picture/sizes of the trough/shade constructions.

L129 Was normal distribution of variables checked by wilcox rank test? Please specify.

Please indicate the packages used, also to illustrate the figures

L141 ranged from.. to..

Please use protected spaces before units

L162 was is meant by V= ?

L162 who is “them”? Individuals of this group? Generally, use (cattle OR animals OR individuals and maintain consistency)

L164 What is meant by spending 39% more?time? Here also use protected spaces before ALL units in the whole document.

LL170 p = 0.053 = 0.05 = significant, no tendency needed here.

L174 X and Y correlated positively (r = , p < )

L176 delete “than with shade”

L177 what means 5-6 fold?

L185-193 This information is doubled, as its shown in Fig. 3. However, I understand why mentioning key correlations. You may indicate exact r values at the end of the phrases to provide additional information and/or remove the Fig. in Supplementary File.

L200 specify “affected”

224 highlight, however, that

242 consistent wording- better demand than requirement

243 please delete/rephrase “elsewhere”

252 replace it with shade

Rephrase “water search frequency” the frequency cattle seek for water?

L310 Please indicate a source for this statement

395-397 repetition of “justify investments”

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .-->

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Sep 12;20(9):e0331238. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0331238.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1

14 May 2025

Reviewer’s comments (R)

Authors’ response (A)

R: The authors describe drinking behaviour of beef cattle with/without shade availability, a topic that has not been well researched despite close links with welfare and, therefore, is of high importance considering rising temperatures due to global warming. The article is in general well written.

A: Thank you for your valuable comments and time dedicated to review our manuscript. We have addressed all your comments. A clean version of the revised version highlights the changes in blue text.

R: However, there is a lack of consistency in wording that needs to be addressed and authors provide only n=2 per group which is a very small sample size. In many cases it is unclear if values are calculated per pen or per animal, this must be more transparent.

A: Values are calculated per individual animal. Text has been added to clarify the RFID tags were uses to track individual cattle.

R: It is described that in heat animals start to play with water instead of drinking – how did you ensure to measure intake or consumption?

A: Individual water intake was measured using the Intergado™ System (Intergado Ltd., Contagem, Minas Gerais, Brazil), which employs RFID technology to track individual cattle and water flow meters installed in the troughs to precisely record the volume of water consumed during each drinking event. The system logs only the water volume that flows through the trough during a drinking event, as detected by the flow meters, ensuring that non-consumptive interactions, such as splashing or playing with water, are not recorded as intake. Additionally, the water troughs were designed and tailored to beef cattle drinking behaviour, minimizing spillage and supporting accurate measurement water intake.

R: For me, the dataset is this small, that I suggest changing the original research article into a short communication.

A: The journal does not specifically take short communications, though it can occasionally be a prefix in the title and may be down to editor discretion here. Given that smaller sample sizes are more prone to Type II errors, the extent to which significant differences and associations have been found in our study is, we believe, relatively convincing, especially given the little research done in this area. We would also note that the sample size is higher than numerous other livestock behaviour full papers in this journal:

N= 20 (10.1371/journal.pone.0285933)

N = 19 (10.1371/journal.pone.0131632)

N = 15 (10.1371/journal.pone.0265037)

N = 24 (10.1371/journal.pone.0118617)

N = 18 (10.1371/journal.pone.0144583)

R: L17 Please move “steers” before brackets : Nellow Steers (Bos indicus)

A: Done.

R: L19 rephrase to “allocated in two groups”

A: Done.

R: L 26 Hard to read, please shorten or split in two sentences: Environmental factors such as Air temperature, humidity, and solar radiation influenced water intake in both groups, with higher air temperatures increasing water intake due to greater drinking frequency and higher relative humidity reducing water intake by decreasing visit frequency.

A: Rephrased and split.

R: L29 water demand, not requirements – please pay attention to wording consistency throughout the manuscript

A: The expression “water demand” was used consistently throughout the document.

R: L38 please also indicate the threat of heat stress for animal health and welfare

A: Added.

R: L42 space lacks at the end of the sentence before bracktes with source

A: Space added.

R: L46 Cattle use evaporative cooling to dissipate heat load. However, evaporative cooling increases the cattle´s need for water to maintain homeostasis [6], consequently increasing the demand of the production systems.

A: Rephrased.

R: L59 please delete water before drinking behavior and in the following text. Generally maintain the same phrase (drinking behavior OR water drinking behavior, better drinking behavior; water intake OR water consumption, better water consumption) “drinking behaviour” used throughout the manuscript.

A: We prefer to keep “water intake” consistently throughout the document since this is how the response variable (WI) was defined and presented in tables and graphs.

R: L83 months, not mo.

A: Changed.

R: L88 May not an unequal number of animals per group per see affect outcomes as drinking frequencies, behaviors etc ? Did you check your data regarding a potential effect of access per animal?

A: Group sizes were balanced except for one pen, which had one fewer animal due to an illness after the adaptation period, with no replacement available. While we acknowledge the theoretical possibility that group size differences could affect access to resources and influence drinking behaviours, this was not observed in our study. The water troughs, designed and sized by Intergado Ltd. according to manufacturer specifications for beef cattle, provided adequate capacity and access for all animals in each pen, minimising competition. The Intergado™ System recorded consistent metrics across groups. Statistical analysis of these variables showed no significant differences attributable to the minor variation in group size, confirming that access to the troughs was not restricted and that drinking frequencies and behaviours remained unaffected.

R: L98 Please provide, if possible, any information of the wells´ water quality

A: There is no information available.

R: L103 water consumed instead of drunk, please change through the whole document

A: “drunk” replaced throughout the manuscript.

R: How was water consumption measures? Which devices were used, how were the water trough sized?

A: In the original manuscript, we briefly mentioned the use of the Intergado™ System (Intergado Ltd., Contagem, Minas Gerais, Brazil) for monitoring individual water intake, as referenced in Chizzotti et al. (2015).

The Intergado™ System utilises RFID technology to identify individual animals and water flow meters attached to the troughs to measure the volume of water consumed during each drinking event. The troughs were designed and sized by Intergado Ltd. to accommodate the cattle’s drinking behaviour, ensuring sufficient access and capacity for accurate measurement, though specific dimensions were not detailed in our study as they followed the manufacturer’s standard specifications for beef cattle. We have included this new information in the manuscript. Similarly, we enhanced the description of the feed intake masurement.

R: L119 (“W)

A: Amended.

R: Fig 1: Provide the size of pens in the figure, it would additionally be desirable to have a picture/sizes of the trough/shade constructions.

A: As mentioned in the manuscript, each pen is 400 m2. We have added photos of all the relevant features in the pen.

R: L129 Was normal distribution of variables checked by wilcox rank test? Please specify. Please indicate the packages used, also to illustrate the figures

A: The Wilcox rank test does not require a normal distribution and thus testing is not necessary. The decision to use non-parametric tests for this was a factor of both sample size and non-normal distributions of variables and the desire for consistency in testing methodologies. Text has been added in this regard. We have also changed the model used for the data to a zero inflated model to better account for the distribution of the data. Citations for R packages added.

R: L141 ranged from.. to.. Please use protected spaces before units

A: Amended

R: L162 was is meant by V= ?

A: This is Wilcoxon’s V, a test statistic. It represents the sum of the ranks of positive differences between the treatment groups.

R: L162 who is “them”? Individuals of this group? Generally, use (cattle OR animals OR individuals and maintain consistency)

A: Amended

R: L164 What is meant by spending 39% more?time? Here also use protected spaces before ALL units in the whole document.

A: Sentence slightly amended. The expression “spending xx% more time” means the duration (e.g., in minutes or seconds) was greater by that percentage compared to the other group.

R: L170 p = 0.053 = 0.05 = significant, no tendency needed here.

A: We respectfully disagree with the reviewer. The limit for significance is 0.05. Only values up to 0.050 are considered significant. Hence, given that 0.053 > 0.050, this is a trend only.

R: L174 X and Y correlated positively (r = , p < )

A: Changed.

R: L176 delete “than with shade”

A: Done

R: L177 what means 5-6 fold?

A: The term "5-6 fold" means an increase of 5 to 6 times the original value (i.e., a multiplication factor of 5 to 6). This phrase is a common scientific shorthand.

R: L185-193 This information is doubled, as its shown in Fig. 3. However, I understand why mentioning key correlations. You may indicate exact r values at the end of the phrases to provide additional information and/or remove the Fig. in Supplementary File.

A: Here we are describing the results in terms of correlations (as we do with tables). We agree that the exact r-value should be provided and this has now been added for the significant correlations highlight However, we prefer to maintain the figure in the main document as this provides additional information. A supplementary table with the exact r and p values has been added.

R: L200 specify “affected”

A: Changed to ‘associated’

R: 224 highlight, however, that

A: We disagree with the suggestion. The phrase is correct in grammar and meaning.

R: 242 consistent wording- better demand than requirement

A: Done throughout the whole manuscript.

R: 243 please delete/rephrase “elsewhere”

A: Done.

R: 252 replace it with shade

A: Done

R: L256 Rephrase “water search frequency” the frequency cattle seek for water?

A: Rephrased to enhance clarity, but the expression “water search frequency” was retained as it’s grammatically correct.

R: L310 Please indicate a source for this statement

A: Added.

R: 395-397 repetition of “justify investments”

A: Sentences rephrased.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Revision note Plos ONE_AC.docx

pone.0331238.s003.docx^{(22.3KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0331238.r003

Decision Letter 1

Juan Loor

27 Jun 2025

<div>PONE-D-25-07671R1-->-->Shade provision and its influence on water intake and drinking behaviour of Nellore cattle in feedlot in a tropical environment-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rivero,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 11 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Juan J Loor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

I COMMEND THE AUTHORS FOR THE EFFORT IN ADDRESSING THE COMMENTS FROM THE ORIGINAL REVIEWER. UNFORTUNATELY, THE REVIEWER DECLINED TO REVIEW THE REVISED PAPER AND GIVEN MY LACK OF EXPERTISE IN THIS AREA OF RESEARCH I SOUGHT ADDITIONAL REVIEWS FROM TWO INDIVIDUALS WITH THE REQUIRED EXPERTISE. ALTHOUGH ONE FO THE REVIEWERS BELEIVES THERE IS A LACK OF INNOVATIVE ASPECTS IN THE RESEARCH, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IN-AND-OF ITSELF IS A REASON TO REJECT THE PAPER. PLEASE ADDRESS THIS ASPECT BY PROVIDING GREATER CONTEXT AND, PERHAPS, HOW THIS WORK MOVES THE FIELD FORWARD ALBEIT IN AN INCREMENTAL WAY. LASTLY, PLEASE ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS POSED BY THE SECOND REVIEWER AS WELL. ENSURE THAT THE REVISED MANUSCRIPT REFLECTS THE CHANGES MADE TO ADDRESS BOTH OF THE REVIEWERS.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

-->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: L84: Use body weight (BW) instead of liveweight (LW) for consistency and clarity.

L91–94: Why was the initial BW estimated using a regression based on only two time points? This approach is typically used for calculating average daily gain (ADG) when three or more data points are available. Alternatively, consider using the average BW from two consecutive weighing days.

L96: Were animals fed ad libitum or were they restricted to a specific amount? Please clarify this in the text.

L98–100: What was the nutrient composition of the diet? Include a table with detailed dietary composition.

L104–106: Please rephrase this sentence for clarity and flow.

L123–126 (Fig. 1): Why were the +S pens all located on the same side (east) of the facility? Was there no randomization in pen assignment?

L136–137: I strongly disagree with the approach taken here. While individual animal data can be collected for dry matter intake (DMI) and water intake (WI), the pen should be considered the experimental unit when comparing treatments. The shade treatment was applied at the pen level, not at the individual animal level, and thus treatment effects cannot be independently assessed at the animal level.

Reviewer #3: I recommend rejection of this manuscript due to a lack of innovation. Although the study was well designed and the statistical analyses are appropriate, the manuscript does not offer any new or relevant insight into the topic under investigation. The discussion is well grounded in the literature, showing that what they have discovered can easily be found in the literature. But overall, I don't believe the work has the level of impact required for publication in this journal.

As the authors themselves recognize, future studies could explore the long-term effects of shade provision on cattle performance using a more integrated approach. For example, incorporating landscape-level shade mapping (based on sun position), GPS tracking of cattle movements, water intake, weather conditions and animal health and performance metrics would result in a more comprehensive and impactful study. I encourage authors to consider expanding the scope of their research in this direction to strengthen future submissions.

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .-->

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

PLoS One. 2025 Sep 12;20(9):e0331238. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0331238.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2

1 Jul 2025

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. We have addressed your comments in the Revision Note and modified the manuscript accordingly.

We hope you find our responses and modifications satisfactory.

Thank you again.

Sincerely,

Jordana Rivero

Attachment

Submitted filename: Revision note PLOS One round 2.docx

pone.0331238.s004.docx^{(17.8KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0331238.r005

Decision Letter 2

Juan Loor

5 Aug 2025

-->PONE-D-25-07671R2-->-->Shade provision and its influence on water intake and drinking behaviour of Nellore cattle in feedlot in a tropical environment-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rivero,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 19 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

-->If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Juan J Loor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: 1: Should environmental variables be considered part of the Results or Methods section? In my opinion, the THI within the pen should be treated as a result, since it was affected by the treatment (shade). However, the other environmental variables (e.g., ambient temperature, rainfall, etc.) should remain in the Methods section, as they are not controlled by the experiment and are more appropriately described as background conditions.

2: I suggest presenting the diet ingredients and nutrient composition in a separate table rather than in the text.

3: This is just a general comment for consideration in future studies, no changes to the current manuscript are needed because de explanation is already in the limitations. While I understand and agree that the individual tracking system (feed and water troughs) allowed for the measurement of individual-level responses, I respectfully disagree with the classification of the individual animal as the experimental unit. This issue led to a lengthy discussion "Variability in water intake and drinking behaviour"

From a statistical and conceptual standpoint, the experimental unit is defined as the smallest unit to which a treatment is applied. In this case, the shade treatment was pen.

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .-->

Reviewer #3: No

**********

PLoS One. 2025 Sep 12;20(9):e0331238. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0331238.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 3

5 Aug 2025

Thank you for your input. Responses uploaded as an attachment.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer response PLOS ONE drinking behaviour.docx

pone.0331238.s005.docx^{(14.7KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0331238.r007

Decision Letter 3

Juan Loor

13 Aug 2025

Shade provision and its influence on water intake and drinking behaviour of Nellore cattle in feedlot in a tropical environment

PONE-D-25-07671R3

Dear Dr. Rivero,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Juan J Loor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0331238.r008

Acceptance letter

Juan Loor

PONE-D-25-07671R3

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rivero,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Juan J Loor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

(XLSX)

pone.0331238.s001.xlsx^{(13.4KB, xlsx)}

S2 File. Inclusivity-in-global-research-questionnaire.

(DOCX)

pone.0331238.s002.docx^{(22.3KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Revision note Plos ONE_AC.docx

pone.0331238.s003.docx^{(22.3KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Revision note PLOS One round 2.docx

pone.0331238.s004.docx^{(17.8KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer response PLOS ONE drinking behaviour.docx

pone.0331238.s005.docx^{(14.7KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

The datasets are available at Mendeley Data, DOI: 10.17632/cctgpznjrc.1 (hyperlink: https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/cctgpznjrc/1).

[pone.0331238.ref001] 1.Mejia Turcios SE, Rotz CA, McGlone J, Rivera CR, Mitloehner FM. Effects of heat stress mitigation strategies on feedlot cattle performance, environmental, and economic outcomes in a hot climate. Animal. 2024;18(11):101257. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2024.101257 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref002] 2.Benefits of Providing Shade to Feedlot Cattle of Different Breeds. TransASABE. 2013;:1563–70. doi: 10.13031/trans.56.9902 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref003] 3.Blaine KL, Nsahlai IV. The effects of shade on performance, carcass classes and behaviour of heat-stressed feedlot cattle at the finisher phase. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2011;43(3):609–15. doi: 10.1007/s11250-010-9740-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref004] 4.Castro-Pérez BI, Estrada-Angulo A, Ríos-Rincón FG, Núñez-Benítez VH, Rivera-Méndez CR, Urías-Estrada JD, et al. The influence of shade allocation or total shade plus overhead fan on growth performance, efficiency of dietary energy utilization, and carcass characteristics of feedlot cattle under tropical ambient conditions. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2020;33(6):1034–41. doi: 10.5713/ajas.19.0112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref005] 5.Malan J-AC, Flint N, Jackson EL, Irving AD, Swain DL. Environmental factors influencing cattle’s water consumption at offstream watering points in rangeland beef cattle. Livestock Science. 2020;231:103868. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2019.103868 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref006] 6.Arias RA, Mader TL. Environmental factors affecting daily water intake on cattle finished in feedlots. J Anim Sci. 2011;89(1):245–51. doi: 10.2527/jas.2010-3014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref007] 7.Collier RJ, Gebremedhin KG. Thermal biology of domestic animals. Annu Rev Anim Biosci. 2015;3:513–32. doi: 10.1146/annurev-animal-022114-110659 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref008] 8.Rivero MJ, Lee MRF. A perspective on animal welfare of grazing ruminants and its relationship with sustainability. Anim Prod Sci. 2022;62(18):1739–48. doi: 10.1071/an21516 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref009] 9.Maia ASC, Moura GAB, Fonsêca VFC, Gebremedhin KG, Milan HM, Chiquitelli Neto M, et al. Economically sustainable shade design for feedlot cattle. Front Vet Sci. 2023;10:1110671. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1110671 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref010] 10.Vizzotto EF, Fischer V, Thaler Neto A, Abreu AS, Stumpf MT, Werncke D, et al. Access to shade changes behavioral and physiological attributes of dairy cows during the hot season in the subtropics. Animal. 2015;9(9):1559–66. doi: 10.1017/S1751731115000877 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref011] 11.Wagner JJ, Engle TE. Invited Review: Water consumption, and drinking behavior of beef cattle, and effects of water quality. Applied Animal Science. 2021;37(4):418–35. doi: 10.15232/aas.2021-02136 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref012] 12.Ellerström C, Strehl R, Moya K, Andersson K, Bergh C, Lundin K, et al. Derivation of a xeno-free human embryonic stem cell line. Stem Cells. 2006;24(10):2170–6. doi: 10.1634/stemcells.2006-0130 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref013] 13.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Livestock hot weather stress. Reg Operations Manual Lett C-31–76. US Govt: US Dept Commerce, Natl Weather Serv Central Reg. 1976. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref014] 14.Thom EC. The Discomfort Index. Weatherwise. 1959;12(2):57–61. doi: 10.1080/00431672.1959.9926960 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref015] 15.Eirich R, Griffin D, Brown-Brandl T, Eigenberg R, Mader T, Mayer J. Feedlot heat stress information and management guide. 2015. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref016] 16.Team RDC. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2010. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref017] 17.Jackman S. Pscl: classes and methods for R developed in the political science computational laboratory. Sydney, New South Wales, Australia: United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney. 2017. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref018] 18.Wickham H, Sievert C. ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer New York. 2009. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref019] 19.Urbanek S, Horner J. Cairo: R graphics device using cairo graphics library for creating high-quality bitmap (PNG, JPEG, TIFF), vector (PDF, SVG, PostScript) and display (X11 and Win32) output. 2020. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=CairoR [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref020] 20.Costa CF, Brichi ALC, Millen DD, Goulart RS, Pereira IC, Estevam DD, et al. Feedlot performance, carcass characteristics and meat quality of Nellore bulls and steers fed Zilpaterol hydrochloride. Livestock Science. 2019;227:166–74. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2019.07.017 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref021] 21.de Figueiredo Moura JR, Ítavo LCV, Ítavo CCBF, Dias AM, Dos Santos Difante G, Dos Santos GT, et al. Prediction models of intake and productive performance of non-castrated Nellore cattle finished in the feedlot system under tropical conditions. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2023;55(2):64. doi: 10.1007/s11250-023-03488-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref022] 22.Silva TIS, Souza JM, Acedo TS, Carvalho VV, Perdigão A, Silva LAF, et al. Feedlot performance, rumen and cecum morphometrics of Nellore cattle fed increasing levels of diet starch containing a blend of essential oils and amylase or monensin. Front Vet Sci. 2023;10:1090097. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1090097 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref023] 23.Silvestre AMM, Squizatti MM, Demartini BL, Felizari LD, Silva TIS, Pinto ACJJ, et al. PSXIII-14 Feedlot performance of Nellore cattle consuming diets containing high-moisture corn, calcium salts of fatty acids and organic minerals. Journal of Animal Science. 2021;99(Supplement_3):465–6. doi: 10.1093/jas/skab235.825 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref024] 24.Estevam DD, Pereira IC, Rigueiro ALN, Perdigão A, da Costa CF, Rizzieri RA, et al. Feedlot performance and rumen morphometrics of Nellore cattle adapted to high-concentrate diets over periods of 6, 9, 14 and 21 days. Animal. 2020;14(11):2298–307. doi: 10.1017/S1751731120001147 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref025] 25.Ferreira RA. Maior produção com melhor ambiente para aves, suínos e bovinos. Aprenda Fácil Editora. 2005. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref026] 26.Novelli TI, Bium BF, Biffi CHC, Picharillo ME, de Souza NS, de Medeiros SR, et al. Consumption, productivity and cost: Three dimensions of water and their relationship with the supply of artificial shading for beef cattle in feedlots. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2022;376:134088. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134088 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref027] 27.Ferro DADC, Arnhold E, Bueno CP, Miyagi ES, Ferro RADC, Silva BPAD. Performance of Nellore males under different artificial shading levels in the feedlot. Semin Cienc Agrar. 2016;37: 2623. doi: 10.5433/1679-0359.2016v37n4supl1p2623 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref028] 28.Zanetti D, Prados LF, Menezes ACB, Silva BC, Pacheco MVC, Silva FAS, et al. Prediction of water intake to Bos indicus beef cattle raised under tropical conditions1. J Anim Sci. 2019;97(3):1364–74. doi: 10.1093/jas/skz003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref029] 29.Pires BV, Reolon HG, Abduch NG, Souza LL, Sakamoto LS, Mercadante MEZ, et al. Effects of Feeding and Drinking Behavior on Performance and Carcass Traits in Beef Cattle. Animals (Basel). 2022;12(22):3196. doi: 10.3390/ani12223196 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref030] 30.Giro A, Pezzopane JRM, Barioni Junior W, Pedroso A de F, Lemes AP, Botta D, et al. Behavior and body surface temperature of beef cattle in integrated crop-livestock systems with or without tree shading. Sci Total Environ. 2019;684:587–96. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.377 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref031] 31.Palacio S, Bergeron R, Lachance S, Vasseur E. The effects of providing portable shade at pasture on dairy cow behavior and physiology. J Dairy Sci. 2015;98(9):6085–93. doi: 10.3168/jds.2014-8932 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref032] 32.Souza ECD, Salman AKD, Cruz PGD, Veit HM, Carvalho GAD, Silva FRFD, et al. Thermal comfort and grazing behavior of Girolando heifers in integrated crop-livestock (ICL) and crop-livestock-forest (ICLF) systems. Acta Sci. 2019;41:46483. doi: 10.4025/actascianimsci.v41i1.46483 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref033] 33.Rivero MJ, Palhares J, Novelli T, Martello L, Perez-Marquez S, Cooke AS. Data on: Shade provision and its influence on water consumption and drinking behaviour of Nellore cattle in feedlot in a tropical environment. 2025. 10.17632/cctgpznjrc.1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

[pone.0331238.ref034] 34.Lardner HA, Braul L, Schwartzkopf-Genswein K, Schwean-Lardner K, Damiran D, Darambazar E. Consumption and drinking behavior of beef cattle offered a choice of several water types. Livestock Science. 2013;157(2–3):577–85. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2013.08.016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref035] 35.Parker DB, Perino LP, Auvermann BW, Sweeten JM. Water use and conservation at Texas high plains beef cattle feedyards. Appl Eng Agric. 2000;16: 77–82. doi: 1013031/2013.4986 [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref036] 36.Blackshaw J, Blackshaw A. Heat stress in cattle and the effect of shade on production and behaviour: a review. Aust J Exp Agric. 1994;34(2):285. doi: 10.1071/ea9940285 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref037] 37.Silanikove N. Effects of heat stress on the welfare of extensively managed domestic ruminants. Livestock Production Science. 2000;67(1–2):1–18. doi: 10.1016/s0301-6226(00)00162-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref038] 38.Office M. Beaufort wind force scale. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/guides/coast-and-sea/beaufort-scale. 2024.

[pone.0331238.ref039] 39.Ahlberg CM, Allwardt K, Broocks A, Bruno K, McPhillips L, Taylor A, et al. Environmental effects on water intake and water intake prediction in growing beef cattle. J Anim Sci. 2018;96(10):4368–84. doi: 10.1093/jas/sky267 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref040] 40.Singh AK, Bhakat C, Singh P. A review on water intake in dairy cattle: associated factors, management practices, and corresponding effects. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2022;54(2):154. doi: 10.1007/s11250-022-03154-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref041] 41.Palhares JCP, Morelli M, Novelli TI. Water footprint of a tropical beef cattle production system: The impact of individual-animal and feed management. Advances in Water Resources. 2021;149:103853. doi: 10.1016/j.advwatres.2021.103853 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref042] 42.Coimbra PAD, Machado Filho LCP, Hötzel MJ. Effects of social dominance, water trough location and shade availability on drinking behaviour of cows on pasture. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2012;139(3–4):175–82. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2012.04.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref043] 43.Lindberg AC. Group life. Social Behaviour in Farm Animals. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing. 2001. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref044] 44.Broom DM, Fraser AF. Domestic animal behaviour and welfare. 6th ed. Oxfordshire: CABI. 2010. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref045] 45.Smid A-MC, Burnett TA, Madureira AML, McLellan KJ, Wegner CS, von Keyserlingk MAG, et al. Access to an outdoor open pack promotes estrus activity in dairy cows. PLoS One. 2024;19(8):e0308182. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0308182 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref046] 46.Sadrzadeh N, Foris B, Krahn J, von Keyserlingk MAG, Weary DM. Automated monitoring of brush use in dairy cattle. PLoS One. 2024;19(6):e0305671. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305671 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0331238.ref047] 47.Napolitano F, Serrapica M, Braghieri A, Claps S, Serrapica F, De Rosa G. Can we monitor adaptation of juvenile goats to a new social environment through continuous qualitative behaviour assessment?. PLoS One. 2018;13(7):e0200165. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200165 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Shade provision and its influence on water intake and drinking behaviour of Nellore cattle in feedlot in a tropical environment

M Jordana Rivero

Julio C Pascale Palhares

Taisla Inara Novelli

Luciane Silva Martello

Simón Pérez-Márquez

Andrew S Cooke

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Fig 1. Layout of the locations of the four pens (two shaded, two unshaded), the water through (“W”), the shaded automatic feeders (two per pen) and the shade structures in a feedlot system for Nellore steers.

Table 1. Feeds composition and nutritional value of the diet fed to Nellore steers with and without access to shade finished in feedlot during spring in a tropical environment.

Fig 4. Structure used to provide shade.

Fig 2. Intergado™ System and steer drinking water.

Fig 3. GrowSafe™ system and steer eating.

Results

Environmental variables

Fig 5. Weather conditions throughout the study period.

Animal performance

Water intake and daily drinking behaviour

Table 2. Water intake and drinking behaviour in Nellore steers with (+S) and without (-) access to shade finished in feedlot during spring in a tropical environment.

Impact of weather on water intake

Fig 6. Spearman’s correlation matrix of weather conditions, both mean (x̄) and maximum, against daily number of visits to the water trough, mean water intake per visit, and mean water intake per day, for both groups.

Within and between day variation in water intake

Fig 7. Frequency of trough visits throughout the day.

Fig 8. Change in drinking behaviour over time: number of visits.

Fig 9. Change in drinking behaviour over time: water intake per visit.

Fig 10. Change in drinking behaviour over time: daily water intake.

Discussion

Water intake and shade

Drinking behaviour and daily patterns

Environmental factors affecting drinking behavior

Variability in water intake and drinking behaviour

Practical implication of providing shade to feedlot cattle

Limitations of the study

Conclusions

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Juan Loor

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 1

Juan Loor

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 2

Decision Letter 2

Juan Loor

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 3

Decision Letter 3

Juan Loor

Roles

Acceptance letter

Juan Loor

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases