Cattle production, water resources, and sustainability: a review of current knowledge and future directions
Year: 2026
Type: article
Abstract: Water quality degradation, increasing drought severity, and low BMP adoption threaten grazing systems, but riparian protection, adaptive grazing, precision livestock technologies, and coordinated Extension–Natural Resources Conservation Service support can meaningfully improve resilience and water outcomes. Feedyards face parallel challenges, particularly nutrient‑laden runoff, high indirect water use for feed, and declining irrigation supplies, yet innovations in manure management, wastewater reuse, and low‑water forage systems offer viable pathways to reduce water demand. Significant knowledge gaps remain, including limited watershed‑scale data, insufficient evaluation of technologies, and the need for practical reuse strategies and drought‑tolerant feed crops. Long‑term water sustainability requires systems‑level approaches, improved incentives, and policy alignment, as technological efficiency alone cannot overcome economic and operational barriers to widespread adoption. Cattle production is a cornerstone of U.S. agriculture, but it faces growing scrutiny regarding sustainability. A key driver of industry adoption of more sustainable production systems is consumer demand for environmentally responsible food products, along with evolving opportunities for market differentiation (Ishaq et al., 2024). This review evaluates water-related challenges in grazing and feedlot systems, synthesizes current research on watershed impacts and the beef water footprint, and highlights emerging strategies to support more sustainable animal production. It identifies best management practices (BMPs) for enhancing water resources, collaborative strategies for water stewardship, and critical knowledge gaps. By mapping existing studies and identifying priority areas for further investigation, this article aims to draw a cohesive roadmap for scalable interventions to enhance water sustainability in US beef production. The upstream value chain within the domestic beef-production system in the United States features a wide variety of extensive components (Heflin et al., 2019) wherein cattle graze native rangeland, native pastures, and/or modified pasture, thereby taking advantage of the ruminant’s capacity to convert relatively low-digestibility plant materials into animal protein and fat. Those rangelands and pastures may nourish beef cattle at any growth stage, including unweaned and weaned calves, stocker cattle, and even finishing animals, depending on the interaction of market conditions with forage availability and quality. Although well over 90% of the domestic beef slaughter consists of animals that have spent some time in a confinement system (aka “feedyard” or “feedlot”) (ERS, 2025), nearly all such animals have spent a substantial proportion of their lives on some kind of grazing resource. Indeed, beef cattle are grazed throughout the entire United States on resources of highly variable quality and productivity in both space and time, but the contemporary interest in the carbon footprint of domestic beef production has focused attention on the Great Plains ecosystem, where grazing beef cattle have largely displaced native American Bison (Allred et al., 2011; De Bernardi et al., 2025) since the late 1800 s. Challenge: Direct cattle access to surface waterbodies can lead to water quality issues like nutrient loading, pathogen contamination, bank destabilization, erosion, and degradation of riparian and aquatic habitats (Agouridis et al., 2005, Figure 1). Overgrazing of upland areas further exacerbates nutrient, sediment, and bacterial runoff to nearby waterbodies. Bacterial source tracking studies in Texas indicate that cattle and other domestic animals contribute 14–29% of bacterial loading in impaired waterbodies (Di Giovanni et al., 2013). The Oklahoma DEQ identifies “riparian grazing” and “rangeland grazing” as two of the top five sources of lake and river impairment for the state (Phillippe, 2024). These issues have resulted in Total Maximum Daily Loads (including the high profile Chesapeake Bay TMDL in Maryland, Virginia and surrounding states, and Tomales Bay Pathogen TMDL in California) and watershed based plans (including the Lake Okeechobee Basin Management Action Plan in Florida and Lavaca River Watershed Protection Plan in Texas) frequently identifying cattle as major contributors to pollution in the Midwest, West, Rocky Mountains, Southwest, and South, and recommending implementation of grazing and riparian protection BMPs (Agouridis et al., 2005). Cattle with access to streams can cause bank erosion and increase nutrient loading in the waterways. Challenge: Drought has long posed a major challenge to cattle production. Reduced precipitation lowers the quantity and quality of available forage, increases reliance on supplemental feed, diminishes animal condition, and triggers costly destocking–restocking cycles, which elevates operating expenses and reduces overall profitability. Furthermore, soil infiltration and water retention are widely recognized as primary constraints in grazing land ecosystems (Teague et al., 2011). In regions dependent on groundwater, these impacts may be compounded by declining aquifer levels and water scarcity, which can reduce both the availability and quality of water for grazing and feeding operations (Theurer et al., 2026). Historically, U.S. cattle numbers declined during major droughts but recovered by subsequent agricultural censuses. However, the 2010s drought, often viewed as indicative of future extreme drought conditions, resulted in substantial regional cattle inventory declines. Relative to the 2007 census, cattle numbers declined 17.6% in the Southern Plains (Klemm and Briske, 2021). Before cattle numbers rebounded, the 2020 to 2025 drought reduced cattle numbers to their lowest since the 1950s, forcing packing plant shutdowns and reduced shifts. As droughts increase globally, producers are seeking management practices to enhance resilience. Challenge: Limited adoption of improved grazing systems may stem from knowledge gaps or insufficient economic incentives. Forage responses to improved grazing systems often require several years to reach full production potential which delays returns on producer investment and reduces the practices’ near‑term economic appeal (Dyer et al., 2021). Further, improved grazing practice adoption is often limited by the need for additional fencing, increased labor, and reliance on leased land. High fencing costs, the inflexibility of permanent structures, and the difficulty of installing fences in floodplains discourage landowners from implementing measures like riparian protection and rotational grazing systems. As a result, only 25% of cattle operations in the Southern Plains employ rotational grazing systems (Murray et al., 2025). Solution: Practices supporting riparian protection (riparian fencing, off-stream water, shade structures, limited riparian grazing, etc.) have been shown to effectively reduce sediment and fecal bacteria by mitigating riparian vegetation trampling, in-stream defecation, and streambed disturbance from cattle (Grudzinski et al., 2020). Relative to direct stream deposition, manure deposited 0.6 m and 2.1 m from a stream reduced bacterial inputs by 83% and 95%, respectively (Larsen et al., 1994). Targeted grazing of riparian pastures has been proposed as a mitigation strategy, as E. coli concentrations were 88% lower when runoff occurred more than 2 wk after grazing, compared with runoff during or immediately following grazing (Wagner et al., 2012). This suggests that timing riparian grazing with periods of low rainfall risk may reduce contamination. Solution: Grazing practices that restore soil function by increasing ground cover and soil carbon have been proposed to enhance drought resilience by improving infiltration and soil water‑holding capacity, thereby accelerating recovery following droughts and pluvial disturbances (Teague and Kreuter, 2020; Dyer et al., 2021). Furthermore, grazing systems that improve manure distribution and vegetative cover can also enhance infiltration, runoff filtration, and water quality when used in conjunction with moderate stocking rates (Briske et al., 2011). Several rotational grazing systems (e.g., adaptive multi‑paddock [AMP], prescriptive, pyric herbivory) have been developed as alternatives to continuous grazing. Empirical and modeling studies indicate reduced runoff and pollutant losses under these systems relative to continuous grazing. Wagner et al. (2023) reported 24% greater edge-of-field runoff and significantly higher nitrogen and sediment losses under continuous grazing compared with prescribed grazing. Ranch‑scale APEX model simulations suggest AMP grazing reduces runoff, sediment, and nutrient losses by 44% to 48% relative to light continuous grazing, and 142% to 158% relative to heavy continuous grazing (Park et al., 2017). Similarly, watershed-scale SWAT modeling showed consistent reductions in hydrologic losses and pollutant export when shifting from heavy continuous to AMP grazing (Park et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2023; Figure 2). Simulated runoff, streamflow, sediment, total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) reductions from conversion from heavy continuous grazing to AMP in the Apple (North Dakota), Lower Prairie Dog Town Fork (Texas), and Clear Creek (Texas) watersheds. Despite these trends, ecosystem responses to AMP grazing are not uniform. Whereas Hillenbrand et al. (2019) observed significantly higher infiltration under AMP than heavy continuous grazing in South Dakota, Teague et al. (2011) found no treatment differences in infiltration or hydraulic conductivity across four Texas ranches under heavy continuous, light continuous, and AMP grazing. However, runoff measured via rainfall simulator was significantly lower only under light continuous, whereas sediment loss was significantly higher only under heavy continuous. Soil moisture was also significantly lower under heavy continuous compared with all other management treatments (Teague et al., 2011). Collectively, this suggests that while AMP grazing can enhance hydrologic function and water quality, outcomes depend on stocking rate, climate, and site‑specific soil conditions. Solution: Precision livestock technologies provide real-time data, enabling ranchers to take timely action. New technologies like virtual fencing (VF) offer a promising alternative to help address adoption barriers and improve the feasibility of implementing adaptive grazing management by reducing the need for physical fences and the labor demands of manual herd movement. Short-term trials in Oklahoma suggest VF is effective for managing cattle, with cattle compliance with exclusion zones exceeding 80% (Murray et al., 2025). In addition to VF, wearable sensors and tags that track cattle grazing and remote sensing using drones and satellite imagery to monitor forage biomass and quality offer new opportunities to enhance grazing management and sustainability (Marchegiani et al., 2025). Solution: Coordination between Extension educational programming and USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) technical and financial support can strengthen adoption and long‑term effectiveness of BMPs (Peterson et al., 2015). Peterson et al. (2015) examined factors influencing conservation practice adoption among Texas beef cattle producers and identified engagement with Extension services as the strongest predictor of adoption. Similarly, Dewald et al. (2019) found that landowners identified Extension as the most trustworthy source of water related information in Texas. Financial incentives can influence adoption of prescribed grazing, but their effectiveness depends strongly on ecological and economic context. Dyer et al., (2021) showed that producer returns from soil‑health–oriented grazing practices depend on forage response dynamics, initial rangeland condition, implementation costs, and producer discount rates. When delayed productivity gains and establishment costs are considered, substantial incentives are often required to reach break‑even outcomes, particularly for profit‑maximizing ranchers. However, financial incentives alone are insufficient to achieve meaningful conservation outcomes. Briske et al., (2011) reported that structural investments such as fencing or water developments yield limited benefits without effective management, underscoring the importance of managerial capacity. Greater coordination between Extension and the USDA NRCS offers a promising pathway to enhance adoption. Peterson et al. (2015) highlighted the value of integrating NRCS technical and financial support with Extension’s educational infrastructure through long‑term partnerships. Successful such as the Texas in which over 90% of in this educational conservation practices 2025). of a for cattle producers enhance grazing management adoption and outcomes. in the U.S. beef with USDA cattle on feed in operations across the 2026). beef are of the agricultural in like supporting and while and regional economic growth et al., 2025). Challenge: water quality challenges runoff and infiltration can high concentrations of and particularly and other emerging have a et al., 2020; et al., et al., 2026). land is available for of manure to nutrient and where from resources is the risk of water quality impairment is In water quality more in with insufficient land for in over of and when and are to surface water or et al., 2012). the availability of water for irrigation the yield of on declining well effectively increase the of land required for use of the posed by feedlot not on rates et al., Challenge: Direct water use within U.S. for and operations for a of total demand compared with the indirect water use from feed production et al., et al., that the water of the feedlot finishing is by feed than feedlot et al., et al., 2025). the two direct water of U.S. beef production has declined to in animal efficiency and management and are in to reuse, and water within Empirical from operations this at in water use during in with underscoring the on water demand and the value of to support water (Theurer et al., 2026). Challenge: management are in water outcomes across the beef chain et al., 2020). However, regional in irrigation availability and systems be for on feed and Although can be over long low and reduce their increase and costs in and of and forage production is for cattle feeding operations in the Southern Great in irrigation efficiency alone not A growing of and et al., et al., et al., et al., et al., 2020; and that technological gains in efficiency may of water resources by production or increasing feed and critical to sustainable water use across livestock production systems. economic in the Great Plains the importance of water availability for livestock systems. Although production to the regional the livestock greater economic In for beef production more and the economic of with exceeding returns by a of five a beef production in of water used compared to than from production et al., water is not only ecological but also a critical economic beef production and the regional agricultural and Solution: nearly of manure runoff management and systems, land and nutrient management, and other treatment et al., 2012). animal management innovations for use systems like for conversion technologies, and to nutrient et al., 2025). These available and systems can manure from a into a for nutrient and carbon reuse offers to managing feedlot reuse most of their wastewater to feed and et al., wastewater treatment systems are available and new opportunities for reuse of wastewater et al., 2025). Solution: in feed and forage systems are for reducing the overall water footprint of beef particularly in regions where such as in the the long‑term of forage production and cattle feeding operations et al., 2026). As shown in Figure opportunities to enhance irrigation efficiency and reduce water to irrigation and water use the importance of a systems‑level to water such as reduced water use during the finishing by et al., feed can reduce water demand without et al. that the footprint of finishing cattle is highly to the irrigation of feed crops. indicate that and with alternative and can reduce use under production conditions. However, that such be in the of sustainability including land and overall system among outcomes are no as the best for finishing cattle across the also feed irrigation as the driver of use in beef systems. these suggest that improving irrigation and regional feed and forage production strategies offer substantial for reducing water footprint while or enhancing productivity et al., Challenge: Water footprint that beef production requires 80% to more water than other have increased both and scrutiny of beef and Although indicate use of to of these substantial across production systems and regions by climate, and feed et al., this with water by to among Texas beef production and 2020). water sustainability is using virtual water footprint or approaches, but differences in system and water et al., 2025). including developed using the provide across and feedlot in and Texas that use is in feed production during the finishing whereas systems on water et al., 2015). However, current largely and of and system their to future water use under evolving production and conditions et al., Solution: of the that influence water use across cattle production systems, which overcome major of current livestock water footprint The Water model a system to cattle dynamics, growth and and into a of et al., This and the and water use across and feedlot By time and management more and for sustainable water management in beef systems. As livestock quality and availability to like the model may enhance of management and support to animals with et al., and watershed‑scale are for the benefits of improved grazing systems and for these to other regions through watershed Long‑term watershed‑scale studies grazing on soil water runoff, and drought resilience is from or modeling which often operations hydrologic and ecological not (Briske et al., Figure Furthermore, current studies frequently on such as infiltration or at the watershed such as this in that the of grazing cover on soil be to watershed-scale The of runoff continuous and and remote sensing and offers new opportunities for grazing evaluation at and watershed However, these technologies require further and to their potential et al. 2023; et al., et al., 2026). of these and into modeling offers additional opportunities to strengthen not only model but more of grazing management across a wide of conditions et al., 2023; et al., 2025). in technologies, remote and VF offer promising opportunities to enhance grazing management and sustainability et al., Figure In can support systems, and the of enabling more effective livestock and management (Marchegiani et al., et al., 2026). However, major knowledge gaps fencing is emerging as a promising for producers in the Great Plains However, more research is to and the of this in the of satellite and other imagery for total is to grazing at the and et al., of VF and with remote sensing of forage adaptive management of grazing land systems et al., 2026). Long‑term of VF on ecosystem services (Murray et al., 2025), animal and and economic particularly for are is to improve VF sources of (Murray et al., 2025), and adoption. High costs and limited technical to (Marchegiani et al., 2025), and the of systems is to support these emerging research is to and reuse strategies et al., Figure water and operational reuse and effective treatment and treatment and other of emerging in livestock systems is also for animal and (Theurer et al., 2026). Direct water quality, particularly and to and quality is largely this is key to water quality for water reuse technologies (Theurer et al., 2026). systems like this in the of water into water for A promising for water reuse is which treatment with recovery while for under conditions have shown effective of and of nutrient potential to reduce demand and improve management et al., 2025). feed system resilience be to beef production in and adoption of with improved management, and more offer practical pathways to reduce water demand while feed production the to influence the overall water footprint of and at this can yield meaningful gains et al., 2026). from highly and systems to feed like and has been shown to reduce use without reducing particularly when with in irrigation efficiency and management et al., 2025). this systems that water use in feed production direct cattle water use and the importance of strategies that feed with regional water availability et al., including and and policy incentives to increasing of the need for water research on has largely focused on with attention to and of beef even in regions where cattle production on feed systems and Water 2024). A more of producer incentives, risk and operational is to effective and conservation of the Management in that irrigation with to systems, reduced use by economic and only yield et al., 2025). However, from the highlights adoption A found that while producers strongly value water conservation for drought risk management and often have their adoption of irrigation management limited and 2020). limited technical and limited in new technologies to underscoring the importance of and that conservation with producer capacity and operational management water sustainability in U.S. beef cattle production. grazing and feedlot systems, the water-related challenges increasing drought and water quality impairment to runoff and nutrient and bacterial loading, declining water availability for feed and forage and growing scrutiny by water footprint The that adaptive grazing management, riparian protection, feed and forage and systems can improve water outcomes while or enhancing production resilience. However, regional outcomes underscoring the of water footprint and the need for that climate, and management efficiency gains alone cannot achieve water sustainability. in irrigation animal and management are adoption of practices is strongly by economic delayed labor land and policy Extension conservation and are for water like remote high and VF for reducing adoption but their effectiveness depends on improved model and at and watershed on these priority and watershed-scale studies to the water quality, and drought resilience impacts of grazing and riparian management across water footprint and watershed to management dynamics, and among water, and outcomes. research and of wastewater reuse and treatment technologies, including evaluation of of emerging feed and forage systems through and irrigation management, and and to reduce adoption barriers and support scalable in water across the beef Wagner as the of the Oklahoma and of the Oklahoma Water Resources at Oklahoma As of the Water and of the water and to increase engagement with the water resources across Oklahoma and the United and of to address high priority water resources As of the and of a and research at for and in as of the Water and is the of for has and Before at was the of the of where the ranchers and of and in the and of to the agricultural to was the of and for the Water where was the in the and implementation of the for the of Water in is based in where and research on quality and manure management with livestock production systems. in water quality, quality, manure and management, and biomass as to beef and production in and manure management, production and land and and pollution policy as in the of and Natural at Texas This was for by The in this are of the and not the or of the or the of interest The that have no of Wagner and
Source: Animal Frontiers
DOI: 10.1093/af/vfag041
Authors: Kevin Wagner, Susan Metzger, Brent Auvermann
Language: English
Subfield: Animal Science and Zoology
Domain: Life Sciences
Open Access status: gold
Estimated APC paid: $3,500
OpenAlex ID: W7222941193