Reducing the water footprint of finishing beef cattle through feed selection

Authors: Rotz, Clarence; STEINER, JEAN - Kansas State University; Castano Sanchez, Jose; WAGGONER, JUSTIN - Kansas State University; THEURER, MILES - Veterinary Research And Consulting Services Llc; GIFFORD, CRAIG - New Mexico State University; Spiegal, Sheri

Submitted to: Agricultural Water Management
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: 1/7/2026
Publication Date: 1/14/2026
Citation: Rotz, C.A., Steiner, J.L., Castano Sanchez, J.P., Waggoner, J.W., Theurer, M.E., Gifford, C.A., Spiegal, S.A. 2026. Reducing the water footprint of finishing beef cattle through feed selection. Agricultural Water Management. 324. Article 110138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2026.110138.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2026.110138

Interpretive Summary: The Ogallala Aquifer, one of the world’s largest, is slowly being depleted where much of the extracted water is used to irrigate crops for livestock feed. To improve the long-term sustainability of beef production in the US, reduced water use in feeding cattle is an important consideration. We determined the water required to produce cattle feeds and assessed the potential for improving the sustainability of finishing cattle in the Ogallala Aquifer region. Compared to feeding corn and alfalfa, using alternative crops such as sorghum and wheat reduced water use up to 38%, but this benefit was very sensitive to where the feeds were produced and the amount of irrigation required. Due to lower crop yields, feeding alternative crops often increased feed costs, fossil energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, reactive nitrogen losses, and land use for cattle feed production. Although alternative crops can be used to reduce the water required for finishing cattle, a comprehensive assessment is needed to consider all aspects of sustainability when making feeding decisions.

Technical Abstract: Life cycle assessments have shown that the blue water footprint (liters per unit of body weight gained) of finishing beef cattle can be large, primarily due to the feeding of corn and corn byproducts produced using irrigated crops. A large portion of the beef cattle in the US are finished on feedlots overlying the Ogallala Aquifer. Feedlots use a complement of feed, either produced nearby with or without irrigation from the aquifer, as well as feed imported from afar, where irrigation also varies. With declining water reserves in the aquifer, growing alternative feed crops requiring less water, such as wheat and sorghum, provides an option for conserving water in the agricultural landscapes overlying the aquifer. Life cycle assessment was applied to simulated feedlots in Nebraska, western Kansas and the Texas Panhandle to quantify the potential reduction in the blue water footprint of finishing cattle with alternative feeds along with effects on feed cost and other environmental footprints. The blue water footprint of producing feeds varied from 2 to 2,000 liters/kg DM depending upon the amount of irrigation used. When most of the base diet came from irrigated corn, substituting half of the grain with wheat or sorghum reduced the water footprint of finishing cattle by up to 38%. In Texas, however, where much of the corn came from non-irrigated crops imported to the state, use of local wheat or sorghum where more irrigation was used increased the water footprint up to 39%. Replacing alfalfa hay in the diet with sorghum hay provided reductions in the water footprint of cattle finished at all three locations. Considering long-term relative feed prices, the substitution of corn with the alternative grains increased the feed cost for finishing cattle, but use of sorghum hay provided a small reduction. Due to the lower yields of the alternative feed crops, their use often increased the cattle footprints of fossil energy use, GHG emission, reactive N loss, and land use. Although alternative crops can be used to reduce the blue water footprint of finishing cattle in the region over the Ogallala Aquifer, a more comprehensive sustainability assessment is needed for weighing the benefits and costs of dietary changes.