This article is a revised version of an article that originally appeared in the Inner Mongolian Journal of Social Science, August 1985

Most expert observers agree that the grasslands, sandy lands, and deserts of China s northern tier are under extreme pressure and rapidly deteriorating. Pastures are turning into sand dunes, stable dunes are turning into roving dunes, and the roving dunes of the old desert areas are expanding south and east. Specialists estimate that the total yield of vegetative matter has been cut in half since 1950 while livestock numbers have quadrupled. The rising imbalance periodically leads to disasters such as the loss of 2,000,000 head in Xilinhote in 1977 and 10,000,000 head overall in 1984. Many officials, specialists and ordinary people pay much attention to these matters and debate both cause and cure.

    In what follows I state some of my conclusions on the situation in the grasslands. They are based on five successive years of spring and fall experience in Wengnuite Banner working to build the Grasslands Demonstration Center there.

Focus on Overgrazing

    The first question that needs to be settled is what is the source of the problem. What is the main reason for grassland deterioration and accelerated desertification? Clearly the problem is man made -- the lands are now under unbearable stress because they are overgrazed.They are overgrazed because they are overstocked. Too many head compete for too little vegetation on too few hectares of land. .

    Some people try to blame adverse climatic changes, the plowing up of virgin land, the search for medicinal herbs, damaging methods of hay making, an increase in grassland rodents, etc. for the trouble. I feel that these are all secondary factors. The climate may well be deteriorating because the range is deteriorating. Plowed land represents but the smallest fraction of the total area (less than three hundredths in Xilinhote). The same is true for dug herbs and poor hay making. We must not let the damage from these things divert our attention from the main problem -- overgrazing. Once stock and resources have been brought into balance everything else will be easy to solve.

    In order to deal with the main problem, overgrazing, several things must be done. First, concepts of stock raising must change. Herdsmen must come to see the range and its vegetation, and not their herds, as their major resource. Herds, in reality, amount to an input on the land, like the seed put in by a crop farmer.

    Second, livestock numbers must be reduced to fit the carrying capacity of the range, and grazing must be well managed to preserve the energy the grass contains. Finally, the productivity of the range itself must be increased step by step.

    The key measure is herd reduction. It is clear that something drastic must be done soon and on a large scale to cut livestock numbers. Thinking can and will change only gradually. Range improvement can only be slow. Moreover, it requires considerable investment. Herdsmen should grasp the key link now and that link is herd reduction.

    In fact without herd reduction most range building measures will fail: hungry cattle and sheep break through fences, eat bark and leaves off trees, destroy new seedings, kill the brush on the dunes. But herd reduction cannot be a simple numbers game. Livestock numbers can be misleading, one cow can equal five to six sheep, one sheep can equal one and a half goats. If we reduce herds by killing off goats and horses (as has been done at Wengnuite) then replace some of them with sheep and cattle, total numbers may go down but feed requirements may well go up.

    It is important to think not just of livestock numbers but of livestock units, taking a mature sheep as one, then rating everything in proportion to the feed requirements of different classes of stock. Most specialists do this, but many discussions and many reports do not take these differences into account.

    The question often arises that if we reduce livestock numbers -- that is, livestock units -- will herdsmen be able to maintain their income and their living standards? The answer is that fewer livestock units do not necessarily mean lower incomes. In fact, if we fit livestock units to the resources of the range and manage them well we can increase both the quantity and the quality of the offtake (animals sold, animal products sold) and thus push incomes up, even doubling them in some cases.

Change the Management System

    Good management requires little or no investment. It begins with the realization that the land is the main resource and that our goal should be to produce as much meat, wool, milk or other animal product per hectare as can be done without damage to vegetation, or still better, while improving vegetation. Good management means, primarily, keeping livestock unit numbers down to levels that the land can support. These numbers can vary depending on the composition of the herd -- that is, the proportions between breeding females, replacements, and fattening animals -- to minimize feed intake and maximize product offtake. The key thing here is to make every animal productive and move each off to market as soon as grown and ready, not carry them through nonproductive winters and extra seasons. With proper herd structure half the number of cattle can produce twice as much meat as is the general practice now. With proper flock structure a somewhat reduced flock of sheep can produce three times as much meat and 50 percent more wool than is now generally obtained. In addition, good management means carrying out wise grazing practices. Probably in the arid and semiarid regions of China's northern tier this means some sort of deferred grazing, rather than ordinary rotational grazing.

    Another question concerns how one determines suitable herd/flock structure or composition. While much research needs to be done before this question can be concretely answered for any given location, the following example from Wengniute Ranch illustrates the general principles. In Table 1 current herd composition or structure is compared with a recommended or approved structure, taking as standard practice in the latter case the sale of fattened cattle at thirty months of age. These tables were worked out by the New Zealand expert Peter Harris.

.

    In the second table current flock structure is compared to a recommended structure:
 

    Just by adjusting herd and Hock structure and without increasing the feed base Wengniute Ranch could expect to increase annual sales of meat and wool as follows:

    In practice, the increases illustrated might be somewhat less than the estimates but still the magnitude of the potential increases makes it very worthwhile to carry out the changes proposed.

    Controlled experiments are also needed to determine the best grazing pattern to fit each local area. Generally, in arid and semiarid regions short-cycle rotational grazing doesn't work well because grass and legume recovery time is slow. Herdsmen prefer deferred grazing under such conditions. One method of deferred grazing is to set aside a large block of land (say one-third of the total) through spring and summer. Then after this block goes to seed graze it in the fall while the other two-thirds rest. The following year a different one-third of the land is set aside, thus allowing one-third of the land to rest and go to seed each year. Under such a regime the whole range will regenerate itself if it is not overgrazed. No seeding or other measures are necessary.

    Since these measures make so much sense and cost so little to carry out (if the animals are herded not even fencing is needed -- though fencing does help) one might reasonably ask why they haven't been widely used. There are three main reasons. First, in the past grass was plentiful, a resource as abundant as air or water. Wealth was measured only in terms of the number of livestock possessed. This led to the practice of chasing after animal numbers alone. Second, due to hard winters and probable mortality, herdsmen have traditionally tried to keep quite a few old steers on hand. Unlike pregnant cows and yearling calves, the steers were not under stress for growth or reproduction, hence they survived hunger and cold better. Though they lost in the winter and spring most of what they gained in the summer and fall, thus wasting large quantities of forage, they nevertheless provided security for the herdsmen and could be sold if necessary for emergency expenses -- illness, marriage, funerals, and so on. Finally, the price system encouraged keeping older animals around. In the export market the heavier the steer the higher the price per kilogram. In all markets poor meat sold for the same price as quality meat so there was no advantage to selling young, well grown animals. In a period of price rises such as China went through recently, keeping animals on hand in anticipation of the next price rise certainly paid off.

    For all these reasons most herdsmen still carry on in the traditional way maintaining herd/flock structures unsuited to the best use of resources and wasting enormous quantities of scarce forage. Under an improved regime, however, herdsmen can expect better survival rates. Insofar as animal unit numbers are reduced and the range improved, yearlings and breeding females could be expected to come through the winter in better shape than in the past, although special care still would have to be given to young and pregnant animals. Since herds would be smaller, stored forage such as hay and silage should last longer, thus reducing mortality. There is still an added risk, however, to such a regime. Perhaps the government could institute some form of stock insurance to provide security for those willing to take the new path.

Change the Pricing System

    Perhaps the most important step the government could take to improve the situation on the grasslands would be a change in price policy. Changing price policy requires no investment, yet it could be a major factor in turning a bad situation around. Two suggestions: (a) all young cattle, such as first-year weaned calves sold as feeders, should command premium prices; and (b) well-grown fat cattle reaching good market weights at thirty months or under should command premium prices. Older animals, regardless of weight should sell as culls at reduced prices. There should be no rewards for extra weight unrelated to quality or to rapid growth such as now exist in the export market.

    Such price changes would encourage people to sell off weaned calves as feeders or weaners for fattening elsewhere and would encourage others to sell young fat cattle before their third winter, thus maintaining an efficient herd structure. In 1984 many herdsmen told Mr Young (Australian livestock expert) that a price loading of 50 percent in favor of weaned calves would be enough to persuade them to sell their animals rather than keep them through the winter on poor feed. For sheep a bonus price for well grown fat lambs and for high fleece weights would accomplish the same thing.

     A new price policy would be the most effective, most rational, and easiest thing for the government to put into effect under present circumstances. This would give a great boost to the livestock industry, help stop the destruction of the range, and lay the groundwork for a two-stage system of meat production, particularly beef production.

    In the United States cattle ranchers in the arid and semiarid and mountainous regions practice a two stage system. They keep on hand only breeding cows, and raise weaned calves or yearling feeders for sale to feedlots in the grain surplus regions of their own or other states. The price structure rewards them for this with premium prices for young, well-grown feeder cattle. In the grain surplus regions the cattle are fed out and sold for beef at between eighteen and thirty months of age. Under such a system each zone concentrates on the production most suited to it and the zones complement each other. The range bears no pressure from fattening stock while the farming regions find an outlet for their grain. In Nebraska, the two stages of the system exist side by side. Ranchers raise cows and calves in the sandhills while farmers raise corn in the irrigated Platte River valley, then feed it out to feeders bought from the sandhills; surplus Nebraska feeders go to Iowa, Illinois, and even as far east as Pennsylvania.

    With the aid of a good price structure it would be advantageous for China to move in this same direction. Young cattle from the arid and semiarid grasslands could go to river valleys where irrigation makes grain and silage stores possible, (for example, the irrigated flatlands along the lower Xilamulum River in Wengniute Banner). Grain surplus areas in Heilongjiang, Liaoning, Hopei, and perhaps Shanxi could set up feed lots. Such a disposal of livestock could take a lot of pressure off the grasslands and would be welcomed by the herdsmen if prices were right.

    Alternative proposals stress not herd reduction but increasing the productivity of the range through measures such as seeded pastures, shelter belts, air seeding, increased use of fertilizers, widespread use of Kuluns (oases built around water sources), and larger acreages of crops for storage. As long as livestock numbers remain excessively high, however, any measures to increase range productivity will be extremely hard to carry out. Most measures such as seeding (whether by air or on the ground), dune fixation, tree planting, or crop enclosures depend on long-term exclusion of all stock if they are to work at all. The excluded livestock put excessive pressure on the remaining range, causing even more rapid deterioration than before. Recovery in one spot is paid for with blowouts and destruction elsewhere. In many cases herdsmen or livestock break through the fences, invade the excluded area, and take off whatever feed exists long before the plants have a chance to establish themselves.

    Once unit numbers are brought into balance with resources and grazing is well managed, however, all these range-building measures can increase productivity and thus allow for reasonable increases in livestock unit numbers. Quite clearly range-building should be coordinated with balanced stocking rates and good grass management. If not it can easily be defeated. The ruins of many efforts can readily be seen when traveling through the grasslands.

Some Common Misconceptions

    Some rational measures have often proven counterproductive. Increased winter feed supplies from irrigated land, for example, will not automatically lead to reduced stocking rates and less pressure on the land. In many cases, as soon as forage is stored in any form, herders simply increase the number of stock to the limit of the new feed supply and overload the range with even more head. New productive cropland should not be allowed to serve as an excuse to increase livestock numbers to the limit. The crops harvested should serve instead as supplements to the carrying capacity of the range and as emergency stores for hard winters, or as feedlot forage for fat cattle taken off the range and not carried through only to go back out to graze.

    One common perception is that the range cannot be overloaded during the growing season, that harm is done by heavy grazing only before growth begins in the spring or after it ends in the fall. But this theory contradicts all scientific evidence. Plants can be badly damaged or even destroyed by close cropping during the growing season. They need time to store nutrients in the roots, they need to mature and set seed periodically. We cannot overgraze at will during, before, or after the growing season. Those who think otherwise do not have a very deep understanding of plant physiology.

    Another common perception is that only after native stock have been upgraded can numbers be reduced without reducing income. This is a very questionable proposition. While improved breeds are often more productive than native breeds, under current levels of nutritional stress native breeds are performing well below their genetic potential. Bringing livestock numbers into balance with resources can sharply improve the performance of native breeds. This is just another way of saying that the limiting factor in livestock production now is not the genetic makeup of the animals but poor feeding levels, nutritional stress.

    Under severe conditions of stress such as exist in the grasslands now improved breeds may often do worse than native breeds. High producing stock are not used to hardship and cannot survive cold and hunger as native breeds can. Today, first priority should be given to improving nutrition by cutting back numbers and adjusting herd and flock structure or composition. This will lay a firm foundation for breed improvement. This is not to say that all breed improvement efforts are useless now, but only to point out that what is most important is improving nutrition.

    While the "responsibility system" has given many families the incentive they need to work hard and do well, at present, over much of the grasslands the worst possible combination holds sway -- privately controlled stock grazing publicly owned lands. No one cares for the land because no one is responsible for it. Everyone tries to raise more animals and get as much as possible from the range, which is free to all. The result is an uncontrolled scramble for whatever forage exists out there and this amounts to a general attack on range vegetation. Contracting has accelerated the destruction of the range.

    To overcome destruction, government officials are advocating contracting the range along with the stock to individual herdsmen. It is true that holding responsibility for the land should make the herdsmen much better caretakers than they are now. But I foresee many problems. In order to guarantee exclusive use most people will have to fence their range. This might work well on some flat lands and some gently rolling plains but it seems a solution unsuited to hilly or mountainous regions. The amount of range available per family is only 1,000 to 2,000 mou in most places, then up to 6,000 mou in others. Fencing

off the range in squares or rectangles of that size will make rational use of resources difficult. Highlands should be grazed at different times from lowlands, and the same goes for range populated by different plant species. Situations such as exist at Wengniute Ranch where swamplands merge with rolling grazing lands that in turn merge into brush covered dunes require each family to have some land of each type, plus some near and some far dune land. It is hard to imagine a rational fencing scheme that will satisfy these varied demands.

    On hill land, stock tend to run fence lines making paths that erode badly when pounded by rain. Fencing on the scale required must also be very expensive, not to mention the fact that it will completely change the character of the whole region, turning wide open grasslands into a fenced-in nightmare. Furthermore, it is not at all certain that individual families will manage their land well. Many a private owner has ruined a farm in the United States either out of ignorance or greed, or both. Can one expect Mongolian herdsmen to be so different?

    Small voluntary joint herding groups would seem to offer a more practical way out. With eight, ten or more families herding together each fenced area could be 10,000, 20,000 or even 60,000 mou. This would make seasonal grazing within the fence possible and would cost much less per hectare or per head than fencing in individual family plots. Rangeland conditions seem to favor small scale cooperation over all out individual management.

Reduce Han Migration

    One further problem remains: population increases leading to a demand for increased livestock numbers. If the population consisted only of the Mongolian minority this would not be a pressing problem. In the thirty-nine years since liberation the Mongolian population has gone up less than 50 percent. The total population of the region, however, has gone up by a factor of five. The great bulk of this represents Han Chinese in-migration and settlement, including the conversion of many Han migrants from tillers of land to herdsmen who run herds and flocks and compete for space on the overloaded range with the original Mongolian inhabitants. Many Mongolian Chinese feel that they could handle the range wisely if it were not for these vast in migrations. There is some truth to this view and steps really should be taken to stop further Han settlement on the grasslands as herdsmen. There are many other opportunities for Han Chinese to make a contribution to the development of Inner Mongolia. It would make sense to push these opportunities and to discourage the further settling in of new herdsmen. The thrust behind this movement is the relatively high standard of living of many of the herdsmen as compared to the level of many land tilling peasants in the poorer regions of China. But if the movement is not stopped the grasslands will soon become as poor a place to live as any other impoverished region of China.

Next: The Reform Unravels

Back to the Contents page