文章 Articles

A new future for China’s grasslands

Moving livestock south from China’s grasslands can help with their ecological recovery, and open up new agricultural possibilities. Jiang Gaoming presents a radical, organic vision for the future of farming in China.

Article image

China’s many varieties of grassland cover an area of 1 billion acres. They account for 41% of the country’s total area, and are 3.3 times the size of its cropland. Yet these vast grasslands cannot feed the animals they are home to, which together account for one-third of China’s livestock. Many years of overgrazing have led to the deterioration of 90% of China’s grasslands, giving rise to environmental problems such as sandstorms.

Ecologists sometimes refer to the “10% rule”: that 10% of the energy of a primary producer should be passed on to a secondary producer. This means that under good environmental conditions, the world’s green vegetation totals about 200 billion tonnes (pure carbon), of which around 10% will be eaten by herbivorous animals. The dry weight of vegetation on China’s grasslands is 300 million tonnes, leaving about 30 million tonnes for grazing if the ecosystem were undamaged. But the methods currently used to calculate grassland capacity are flawed, and overgrazing is widespread. Actual numbers of livestock are far above even ‘theoretical’ thresholds, and the grasslands have inevitably deteriorated. How can this pressure be relieved and the grasslands allowed to recover?

The answer lies not with the grasslands, but in China's cropfields. Aside from producing 500 million tonnes of food, China’s 167 million acres of farmland also produce over 700 million tonnes of straw. Corn, wheat and rice make up 38%, 22% and 19% of the total straw, respectively. Other crops produce smaller proportions, such as legumes (4.8%), tubers (2.8%) and rapeseed (8.3%). Of this straw, 94.9% can be used as fodder. In fact, all of China’s straw could provide 22 times as much fodder as the grasslands can reasonably provide. And using technology to double the value of the fodder could feed all of China's livestock.

Unlike on the grasslands, if straw is eaten by sheep and cattle it can be returned to the land in the form of manure or residue from biogas production. Not only will the land be unharmed, but it will also be fertilised. Livestock production should be moved south, from the arid grasslands of traditional herding areas in Inner Mongolia, Tibet, Xinjiang and Qinghai to the food-producing provinces of Shandong, Henan, Hebei, Sichuan and Hunan.

China has 4.7 billion chickens, and an annual demand of 3.7 chickens per person per year. But farmers squeeze chickens into wire cages and overuse additives to fatten them up as quickly as possible. This makes them ready for slaughter in 45 days, as opposed to the 300 days of a free-range chicken. These unnatural meat-production methods are contributing to obesity in our cities. They are aiding the spread of avian flu that endangers food safety and public health, and are inviting criticism of China’s record on animal-welfare issues. The wide open spaces poultry need are not to be found in farmyards, much less in wire cages; the space is out on the grasslands. Chickens present no danger to the grassland, and can help control pests. In the future, the huge quantities of chicken and eggs that China needs should come from the grasslands.

Raising chickens on the grasslands, where they can benefit from its naturally spacious environment.

Raising chickens on the grasslands. (Photo by Gaoming Jiang)

Tragically, all this potential livestock fodder is now treated as waste and burned off in the fields, despite regulations to the contrary. There is currently no way to use the straw, and so the law is ignored. But if full use was made of the straw, the value added could be five to 10 times the worth of the grain itself.

Burning straw in the fields

Burning straw in the fields (Photo by Dezhang Shan)

Farmland in places like Shandong can produce about one tonne of grain per mu (0.17 acres) of land. After costs, this can bring in an income of around 500 yuan (US$64), less than a migrant worker in China’s cities will earn in a month. But if three tonnes of fodder could be harvested at the same time, it would feed an adult cow for 150 days. Cows could bring an extra 2,700 yuan (US$345) of value per mu, and raising dairy cows would be more profitable still.

From ancient times until recent years, straw was used as fuel or to feed draft animals that ploughed the fields. Now tractors have replaced draft animals; chemicals have replaced organic fertilisers; and coal and gas have replaced straw as fuel. But tractors don’t produce manure, and chemical fertilisers are dangerous, causing pollution, losses in soil fertility and increasing costs for farmers.

Apart from the material waste, the loss of energy is also significant. Although for many years China has advocated the use of biogas, high costs and a scarcity of manure has made government support ineffective. But the use of straw as feed, can provide an efficient new source of power, as manure is used to make biogas and biogas residue is used to fertilise crops.

Straw must be processed into fodder to supply livestock feed, to provide energy from biogas and ensure China’s sustainable agricultural development. There are huge profits to be shared not only between crop farmers and livestock farmers but also the transportation, processing and organic fertiliser industries. The power and service sectors can also benefit, all of which will be linked together by the invisible hand of the market.

There is no better way to deal with grassland deterioration, pests, food safety and the risk of avian flu than raising chickens on open grassland. In 2005, I carried out an experiment in Inner Mongolia’s Zhenglan Banner, and found that it is possible to raise 15,000 chickens on 300 mu (50 acres) of land. After expenses and labour, income from each mu (0.16 acres) was 50 yuan (US$6), over 50 times the income of traditional herding (one mu of damaged grassland in Inner Mongolia brings in less than 10 yuan.)

Raising livestock in crop-growing regions presents problems with the transportation, storage and the conversion of straw into feed. These problems can be resolved through new technology, using innovations in microorganisms, enzymes and processing to ferment and package straw into bales of fodder. The city of Laixi, in eastern China’s Shandong province, already collects all its straw for use and does not burn it. Raising chickens in herding areas will face no market problems if urban consumers will opt for free range chickens over caged birds. And if the price is similar, they will.

Equipment for converting straw into quality fodder.

Equipment for converting straw into quality fodder. (Photo by Shan Dezhang)

The Chinese government should research the idea of moving livestock south and chickens north. Model projects should be established in the south and the north, using technology and the market to promote China’s economic growth and sustainable development.

Jiang Gaoming is a professor at the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Botany and a doctoral candidate tutor, vice secretary-general of the United Nations Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organisation’s China-MAB (Man and the Biosphere) Committee and member of the UNESCO MAB Urban Group. He is recognised for his introduction of the concepts of urban vegetation and using natural forces to restore China’s ecosystems.

Now more than ever…

chinadialogue is at the heart of the battle for truth on climate change and its challenges at this critical time.

Our readers are valued by us and now, for the first time, we are asking for your support to help maintain the rigorous, honest reporting and analysis on climate change that you value in a 'post-truth' era.

Support chinadialogue

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



A simple solution

This article suggests that multiple problems of overgrazing, Avian flu, waning rural incomes, the quality of chicken meat production, and increasing pressures on Chinese food production may be solved by this rearrangement of resources.
Jiang Gaoming has commented on ways different agricultural productions may be complemented efficiently. And the points made are certainly promising. However, I feel the issue of livelihoods affected has been unduly ommitted from the discussion. The northern provinces affected are also home to ethnic minorities, to whom raising cattle forms a traditional part of life. Sweeping legislation runs risk of further undermining these ethnic groups, and forcing them to join the growing underbelly of Chinese development: the poor unskilled workers. A simple solution therefore may not necessarily be best.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



Above comment is really good.

Though the author's suggestions sound reasonable in terms of animal husbandry development, he does not take into consideration of the impacts of the advised practices on the livelihoods of affected areas.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



How about the feasibility of moving livestock south and chickens north?

Mr. Jiang’s article is very helpful to me, with professional knowledge and good readability. The idea is very exciting, but how about the feasibility of it? As a farmer in Hebei Province or a herdsman on the grassland in Inner Mongolia, what should we do to help achieving the goal? However, everything has two sides. Is there any negative problems to execute this plan? Is it technically feasible? Is it economically practical? Has it been evaluated across-the-board?

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



The author is very foresighted in his suggestions!

The above comment certainly touched upon a very important problem - the habits and customs of the ethinic minorites. To them, livestock is not merely a resource for meat production, and source of financial income, but provides a basis for life, clothes and shelter (yurts). One can see traces of their farmed livestock in every aspect of their lives. Of course, the author did not speak about abandoning the rearing of livestock in the north, but simply put forth a logical framework to adjust the agricultural industry.
However, this kind of readjustment framework would bring about an enormous rise in employment.This is what I guess would happen. In the end, rearing battery instead of free-range chicken has a much higher production efficiency.
In my personal understanding of the situation, the culture and customs of minorites allow them to remain self-sufficient, and inclines them towards a more comfortable lifestyle. In that case, a generalisation of this suggested mode of production would be met with strong popular resistance.
What is needed, of course, is adjustment, not regression. More importantly in practice, under the current rapid development towards a perfect market production, the author's suggestions still merit a lot of foresight. At least I believe, there are no visible shortcomings in theory.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous





Does your proposal lead to resettlement?

From the perspective of economics, the author's suggestion is indeed good, innovative and reasonable. However, from the viewpoint of anthropogeography and sociology, despite the above benefits, I think your suggestion will lead to changes in demography and social structure, even huge influences on employment.

I would like to know, should it be letting the inhabitants adapt to a new way of production, or should it be letting people resettle from the south to the north and vice versa for better use of resources? What exactly is the change resulted from your suggestion?

Worth more consideration, but it's very interesting!

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



The new thoughts suggest no resettlement

The new thoughts I suggested do not require resettlements, instead it will lead to the change of those stocks to rear by giving a full play of the advantages of farmlands and grasslands.

This will have less impacts upon traditional grazing areas. On the contrary, the new ideas will help shift from quantity to quality animal husbandry.

Though the traditional animal husbandry does not only help keep the culture but also create opportunities for eco-tourism. However, it cannot guarantee good economic returns.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



Silage vs straw

Cattle farmers usually go to collect straw during the autumn harvest. Straw from every mu of field (1 hectare equals to 15 mu) is usually worth about 80 yuan (some 10 US dollars).

Compared to dry straw, fermented silage is more nutritious and a better feed for cattle to grow faster.

Cattle which is fed with silage is usually ready for slaughter two months earlier than those fed with dry straw.

More importantly, beef of cattle fed by silage is not contaminated with hormones and pesticides.