The study was conducted within the framework of the BlueBeef project (CSR, Regione Veneto, Italy), which aims to identify the strategies for improving water use efficiency in the beef sector. A total of 37 beef fattening farms located in Veneto region (Northeast of Italy) were surveyed, distributed as follows: 5 in the province of Padova, 5 in Rovigo, 10 in Treviso, 5 in Venice, 1 in Vicenza, and 11 in Verona (Figure 1). All participating farmers were members of the cooperative of beef producers called Associazione Zootecnica Veneta (AZOVE; Cittadella, Italy) and reared mainly Charolais and Limousin young bulls and heifers imported from France (Gallo et al., 2014). The specialised fattening system for beef cattle of this region was well described in previous studies by Santinello et al. (2022, 2024), Magrin et al. (2019a, b), and Cozzi et al. (2005, 2009).

The questionnaire was designed to provide a comprehensive overview of water use and water management practices at the farm level and to identify areas for potential improvement. The questionnaire was developed based on general knowledge about specialised beef fattening farms in Veneto region, including multiple-choice questions, yes/no questions, and short open-ended questions (Supplementary Table S1).

It was developed to capture detailed information across several thematic sections:

Questions in section (ii) were repeated based on the number of barns present on each farm, resulting in a variable total number of questions, with a minimum of 81 (Supplementary Table S1).

The survey was created using the Google Form platform (Supplementary Table S1), and before being distributed to all farms of the project, it was validated in two farms. The questionnaire was administered face-to-face to farmers by the same operator, with an average duration of half an hour, depending on the size of the farm. During the interviews, the operator clearly explained the aim of the survey and each question to the farmers. Moreover, the operator directly measured the temperature (Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany) of the animals’ drinking water at the drinkers and the temperature of the source water at the main water source supplying the system. Water temperature was measured five times at the main water source and at five separate drinkers.

Survey responses were downloaded from the Google Forms and compiled into a spreadsheet. Data were checked for completeness and consistency; ambiguous or missing entries were clarified with the respective farmer by telephone calls. Numeric and categorical variables were coded for subsequent analysis.

All analyses were performed using R software v. 4.5.1 (R Core Team, 2025). Descriptive statistics were generated to summarise farm characteristics, water use metrics, and management practices. Continuous variables (i.e. barns (n), pens (n), pen area (m²), animals (n), water temperatures (°C)) were summarised using means, standard deviations (SD), and ranges. Answers to the questionnaire were reported as frequencies and percentages. Based on the existing variables, new traits were calculated, namely animals per pen (n/pen), area per animal (m²/animal), drinkers per pen (n/pen), and animals per drinker (n/drinker).

All participating farmers were male with an average age of 57.9 years (ranging from 29 to 91 years). The surveyed beef fattening farms were structured as reported in Table 1 and, at the time of the survey, collectively housed 23035 animals distributed across 167 barns. On average, each farm comprised 5 barns and a total of 68 pens. However, considerable variability was observed among farms, ranging from a single barn to as many as 10, and from 10 to 145 pens. The pens had an average area of 47.4 m², and the mean number of animals per farm was 623 (Table 1). Regarding the composition by sex, 10 farms housed only males, 16 housed only females, and 11 housed both sexes. Farms rearing both sexes were generally larger, with an average of 951 animals, whereas male-only and female-only farms averaged 645 and 383 animals, respectively (Table 1).

Answers to principal questions on water management and consumption in the surveyed farms are presented in Table 4, while the complete set of questions is reported in the Supplementary Table S1.

Regarding the water supply, Figure 2 shows that farms use mainly wells to provide drinking water to animals, washing equipment and pens (Figure 2). The predominance of well water as the primary source aligns with findings from the 43 feedlots surveyed by Simroth et al. (2017) in North America. Twelve farms used the aqueduct as their primary water source for animals (Figure 2). Among the 14 farms using wells as their main water source for animals, 11 (79%) also maintained a secondary well for emergencies (Supplementary Table S1). Similarly, of the 11 farms supplied by both wells and the aqueduct, 10 relied on wells as the main source and used aqueduct water only when necessary, whereas one farm reported the opposite arrangement (Supplementary Table S1). A farm equipped with at least two water sources can handle unexpected water supply emergencies, which is a criterion positively evaluated in the Italian welfare assessment protocol for beef cattle (Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia Romagna, IZSLER, 2025).

Most farmers (78.4%) were unable to report their overall annual water consumption or the amounts used in each farm department, mainly because they lacked monitoring systems to measure water use (Drastig and Singh, 2025; Table 4). This represents a significant constraint on water management optimisation since, without monitoring infrastructure (e.g. Internet of Things-based sensors and smart meters), farmers cannot establish baseline consumption patterns, detect leaks, or implement data-driven conservation strategies, which is increasingly important given water scarcity pressures in the Po Plain region (Ingrao et al., 2023; Montanari et al., 2023). Nonetheless, almost all respondents estimated that drinking water represented between 80% and 90% of total water consumption, indicating an awareness of its predominance in the production cycle.

Across the 167 barns, the drinking system consisted of push-paddle bowl drinkers in 88% of cases, bulk troughs in 11%, and 1% used both types (Supplementary Table S1). Bowl drinkers can be self-filling, to maintain a constant water level, or provide water on demand through a lever mechanism; in both cases, they supply water to one animal at a time (EFSA, 2025). From a welfare perspective, large bulk troughs are favoured drinkers since they allow dairy cattle to drink up to 15–20 L/min thanks to the open surfaces (EFSA, 2025; Jensen and Vestergaard, 2021). However, Jensen and Vestergaard (2021) noted that no single study has directly compared drinking behaviour in cattle using bulk troughs versus bowl drinkers. Existing evidence comes from separate studies on dairy cows, which limits the ability to draw conclusions for beef cattle. In the surveyed farms, the widespread use of push-paddle bowl drinkers likely reflects their management advantages over traditional bulk troughs, such as reduced water waste due to animals playing, less manure contamination, meaning also less time spent cleaning by operators, and lower evaporation losses.

Approximately 43% of drinkers were designed to minimise water waste by animals, and more than one-third had been renewed within the past five years (Supplementary Table S1). The anti-waste features incorporated design elements such as splash guards and optimised bowl depths that significantly reduce spillage and overflow. The presence of anti-waste features, while encouraging, suggests the existence of certain barriers, including cost constraints for retrofitting existing systems or the perceived necessity among farmers. The recent renewal of drinkers in over one-third of farms suggests growing awareness amongst farmers about the importance of modern, efficient watering infrastructure, while the remaining drinkers represent a significant opportunity for further improvement. Targeted incentive programmes or subsidies for upgrading existing drinkers could accelerate adoption.

Farmers generally demonstrated care and good management practices regarding equipment maintenance, as regular inspection and repair were reported on all farms as well as systematic daily cleaning of drinkers (Table 4; Supplementary Table S1, respectively). Water quality was also regularly monitored: 23 farms conducted testing once per year, 4 farms twice per year, and 10 farms more than twice per year. None of the farmers reported any health problems attributable to poor or contaminated water quality (Table 4). Such management aspects are crucial for cattle health and performance, as even minor manure contamination or impairment of water flow can negatively affect cattle’s water intake (Schütz et al., 2019; Wagner and Engle, 2021). Cattle are known to discriminate between water sources based on organic and particulate content, showing reduced intake when water contains suspended solids that alter its appearance, odour, taste, or chemical properties (Bica et al., 2021; Schütz et al., 2019).

Although annual microbiological testing represents a minimum standard for welfare assessment level in Italy, no European legislation currently regulates the quality or contamination of livestock drinking water (EFSA, 2025; IZSLER, 2025). As example, Wagner and Engle (2021) reported safe concentrations for critical water quality parameters for beef cattle: total dissolved solids (<1000 mg/L), nitrate (<45 mg/L), nitrite (<33 mg/L), and sulphate concentrations (<300 mg/L) (Wagner and Engle, 2021). The quality of water supplied to animals is therefore crucial to maintain physiological and metabolic homeostasis (e.g. pH, total count of coliforms) and to prevent potentially serious damage to farm equipment and pipelines (e.g. salinity, sulphate concentrations, total dissolved solids; IZSLER, 2025). In general, farms relying on aqueduct water underwent more frequent testing (>2/year) since the water utilities must control the quality and must comply with regulatory limits before distribution. More frequent testing is advisable for farms relying on well water, particularly in locations with documented water quality concerns, as testing frequencies may be insufficient to detect seasonal variations or acute contamination events.

Water temperature is another crucial aspect to consider, as it is known to influence cattle water intake (Ahlberg et al., 2019; Wagner and Engle, 2021). In the surveyed farms, the average water temperature at the main water source was 13.2 °C (range 8.3-17.7 °C; data not shown) while the average water temperature at the drinkers was 12.7 °C (range 9.0-17.0 °C; data not shown). The moderate positive correlation between the two temperatures (0.55; data not shown) suggests that source water temperature influences, but does not fully determine, the temperature of water at the drinking points. Several additional on-farm factors can significantly modify it along the distribution system, such as the exposure of pipes or drinkers to sunlight or shade, drinker type, pipe insulation, and the residence time of water within the system. Only one farmer reported actively adjusting drinking water temperature for cattle, particularly during winter (Table 4). Recently, Li et al. (2025) found that 8 Wandong beef bulls given warm water (32 °C) during winter months had higher average daily gain and dry matter intake compared to those given cold water (6 °C), indicating that water temperature can affect growth performance, metabolism, and stress (Li et al., 2025). Thus, farmers should take into account the possibility of providing warmer water during colder months to mitigate cold-induced thermal stress and enhance growth performance.

Regarding washing practices, none of the farmers were able to quantify the volumes of water used (Table 4). The lack of measurement of water used for cleaning has also been reported in dairy cows (Krauß et al., 2016) and pig barns (Misra et al., 2020), suggesting that this issue extends to other livestock sectors. In farms, water for cleaning has multiple applications, including floor washing, equipment washing, and sanitation (e.g. boots), which complicates the estimation of total water use associated with such activities (Krauß et al., 2016). Specifically for pens, washing routines varied across farms, and 64.9% reported having a scheduled washing plan for them (Table 4). Approximately half of the farmers (19 farms; 51%) washed pens after each fattening cycle, while only one farmer performed washing procedures after the adaptation phase. In contrast, 11 farmers (30%) were unable to specify their cleaning frequency, describing it as a routine activity not systematically recorded. In this case, the washing of pens did not include the routine removal of bedding (e.g. straw from pens with solid concrete floors). Moreover, all farmers reported washing tractors and machinery regularly: 17 farmers (46%) once per month, and 5 farmers (14%) twice per month.

Information on how the farmers perceived the water resource was shown in Table 5. Overall, 13.5% of farms experienced water shortages only once in the past. Water shortages were reported by both farms supplied by wells (i.e. climatic conditions) and those supplied by aqueducts (i.e. broken pipes or undersized pipelines). Although most farmers had not faced frequent water shortages, 62.2% recognised water as a crucial and limited resource, and an equal proportion reported adopting good practices to ensure its proper use and avoid waste (Table 5). For example, 48.6% of farms were provided with a rainwater collection system, which could be an alternative water source for washing procedures, reducing dependence on groundwater and aqueduct supplies during periods of scarcity (Monteiro et al., 2023). However, the effectiveness of these systems depends critically on proper design (e.g. catchment area, filtration, storage capacity), regular maintenance, and strategic integration with existing on-farm water infrastructure (Monteiro et al., 2023). Moreover, all farms employed temperature regulation through mechanical ventilation and natural barn openings, relying exclusively on air-based or passive cooling (Table 4). Additional water-conserving strategies included replacing broken, damaged, or outdated drinkers and adopting self-filling drinkers to reduce water waste (Monteiro et al., 2023).

The surveyed farmers were aware of the potential impact of drought and water shortages on livestock performance and farm productivity, consistent with scientific evidence on the effects of reduced water and feed availability on animal health and growth (Slayi et al., 2023). However, none of the farmers or farm operators had attended specific training or courses related to water management (Table 5). The absence of training programmes and decision-support tools highlights a gap between farmers’ awareness and experience and their technical capacity to manage water efficiently (Drastig and Singh, 2025). To address this gap, coordinated efforts among extension services, industry organisations, and research institutions are needed to develop regionally tailored training programmes that specifically target the challenges faced by beef cattle farms in water-stressed areas such as Veneto and the Po Plain. Moreover, the development and implementation of farm-scale water management tools are crucial, ideally locally calibrated and validated, would allow farmers to quantify water use and optimise management practices for livestock systems (Drastig and Singh, 2025). Integrating farmers’ experiential knowledge with water conservation strategies and technologies could strengthen the sustainability and resilience of beef cattle production under conditions of water scarcity (Ingrao et al., 2023; Wanniarachchi and Sarukkalige, 2022). To ensure adoption, farmers must be aware of the benefits these solutions offer and receive adequate economic support to implement them. The costs associated with maintaining herds, upgrading infrastructure, implementing monitoring systems, and increasing labour requirements may prevent the uptake of such practices, particularly in small farms operating under narrow profit margins. In this context, targeted incentives and supportive policy measures are essential to promote the adoption of more sustainable water management strategies.

The present study focused exclusively on specialised beef cattle fattening farms in Veneto region, representative of the beef production model in this area, as widely documented in the literature (Cozzi et al., 2005, 2009; Gallo et al., 2014; Magrin et al., 2019a, b; Santinello et al., 2022, 2024). As such, they provide an appropriate framework for characterising water use and management practices within a key segment of the national beef supply chain.

While the study was regionally focused, its relevance can extend beyond the local context. Specialised beef fattening farms are widespread across several European regions characterised by high livestock density and increasing pressure on water resources (EFSA, 2025). Nevertheless, expanding the sample to include a larger number of farms and a broader range of production systems beyond the regional level would allow for cross-regional comparisons and benchmarking of water management practices.

The gaps in consumption data identified through this survey also highlight the need for more detailed investigations. In particular, a subsequent research phase could involve the systematic collection of quantitative data on farm-level productive performance and actual water consumption, allowing a more robust assessment of the relationships between beef cattle production efficiency and water use.

In addition, future studies should incorporate a more detailed technical characterisation of drinkers and behavioural observations. In the present study, key drinker features (e.g. height above the floor and available water surface area) were not quantitatively assessed. These characteristics are known to influence cattle access to water and drinking behaviour, with important implications for animal welfare, as observed in dairy cows by Machado Filho et al. (2004) and Teixeira et al. (2006).