ArticleJDS communications2026
Reducing water usage to cool cows by applying smart technologies.
Article in JDS communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When trying to achieve optimum production, lactating, and dry dairy cows must be provided with relief from heat stress. The most practical and common methods to alleviate the negative effects of heat and humidity on lactating and dry dairy cows consist of 3 main approaches: shade, natural ventilation, and active cooling, with active cooling being the most advantageous. Our objective was to determine if an automated smart system (Agpro, Paris, TX) for controlling soaker output is as effective as the conventional approach to controlling soakers, which relies on a set frequency after a threshold temperature is reached. Nulliparous (n = 12) and multiparous (n = 30) pregnant Holsteins cows were dried off 40 ± 9 d (multiparous only) before expected calving and randomly assigned to one of 3 treatments in the same barn: 5-min interval (30s on, 5 min off) cooling periods with shade, fans, and soakers (CL; n = 14); Agpro smart cooling with shade, fans, and soakers (SS; n = 14); and heat stress with only shade and natural ventilation and no active cooling system (HT; n = 14) during the dry period until parturition. Daily DMI of individual cows, pen water intake, and pen water usage from soakers were measured daily. Blood samples for hematocrit were taken weekly. Respiration rate (in breaths per minute [bpm]) and rectal temperature (RT) were measured 3 times weekly. Calf birth weight and gestation length were recorded upon parturition. No differences were observed for gestation length, calf birth weight, dry period length, or hematocrit among the treatments. However, HT cows had lower overall DMI than SS (8.6 vs. 10.1 ± 0.4 kg/d;
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.