Introduction

Rural Chinese communities have been greatly impacted by political transitions that have affected production systems (Pan et al. 1999). During the period between the 1950s and the 1970s, Chinese agrarian production was chiefly managed by collective units such as communes (Renmingongshe in Chinese), brigades (Dadui), and production teams (Shengchandui). These units were responsible for administering agrarian production, including livestock and pasture. After the dismantling of the People’s Commune and the introduction of the Household Responsibility System (HRS) at the end of the 1970s, agricultural fields and livestock were allocated to individual households according to the number of members in the household, while most rangelands remained common property (Duan 1997, pp. 423–426; Huang 1995, pp. 154–171; Li et al. 2007). Many policymakers perceived the arrangement of individually-owned animals being grazed on commonly held rangelands as a “tragedy of commons” that triggered widespread overgrazing (Banks 2001; Ho 2000). Consequently, many have promoted rangeland privatization as a preferable alternative Footnote 1 that would result in greater productivity and sustainability.

However, researchers have highlighted problems with assessing both the causes and the extent of rangeland degradation. For example, Sneath (1998) reported that rangeland degradation in Inner Mongolia can be attributed to large-scale reclamation undertaken during the collective era, and Harris (2010) questions the limited scientific basis used in the case of Qinghai Province to argue for the expansion of rangeland degradation. Yan et al. (2005) draw attention to the inherent difficulty in implementing rangeland privatization in terms of the allocation of plots with more or less equivalent grass quality, availability of watering points, and market accessibility. Banks (2001) points out that privatization would prevent effective cooperation in herd and rangeland management within and among pastoral communities. All these researchers similarly noted policymakers’ overall lack of understanding of the dynamics of rangeland ecology and pastoralist societies in general.

Background

Herding strategies have significant implications for the development and implementation of rangeland policies. Pastoralists’ grazing allocation strategies are based on a variety of criteria, including ecological factors, such as grass quality and quantity, and social factors such as market accessibility. In dry regions, herders tend to concentrate their grazing camps around watering points, which can cause localized rangeland degradation (Andrew 1988; Fusco et al. 1995). After economic deregulation in Mongolia, studies reported that herders tended to concentrate their livestock along arterial roads and in the areas surrounding markets, which led to overgrazing in these areas while remote pastures were rarely used (Fernandez-Gimenez 2002; Okayasu et al. 2007). The case study presented here examines a semi-pastoralist population based in western China, where the combination of ecologically very diverse rangelands and rapid social changes as a result of economic deregulation and development policies (Arora 2008; Liu 2002) impacts the ability of pastoralists to appropriately evaluate pasture quality.

In terms of climate and biota, mountain ecosystems are characterized by rings of altitudinal zones (Rhodes and Thompson 1975), but tend to have regular interannual precipitation. Thus, Casimir (1992) has noted that mountain rangelands exhibit stable production and belong to a single equilibrium system. Livestock are herded seasonally across a number of diverse zones (Kreutzmann 2004) along relatively constant routes every year. In mountainous terrains, grazing intensity is expected to have a greater impact on rangeland conditions than in a non-equilibrium system of dryland pastoralism. Footnote 2

Another difference between flat dry-land and mountain pastoralists is that the former tend to be full-time herders while the latter tend to be mixed farmers/herders (Khazanov 1994, pp. 17–25). However, Brower (1991, pp. 117–145) found that in Sherpa areas of the Khumbu Himal, the scale of animal husbandry and agricultural production were regionally and individually diversified and thus making valid generalization impossible. Indeed, even among mountain mixed farmers/herders, there are several approaches to animal husbandry. Thus this study focuses on the diversity of rangeland use in the mountain communities.

Research Sites and Methods

My research data were collected from 2000 to 2004 among Tibetan communities based at the eastern edge of the Tibetan Plateau, southwestern China (Fig. 1), a vast, undulating mountain landscape that has been eroded by large rivers. My objectives were to evaluate the relationship between rangeland policy and the actual situation on the ground in the context of the mountain ecology and recent social changes under HRS, and to assess the future viability of pastoralism in these areas.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The location of research villages and herder camps

Full size image

I analyzed rangeland use using the concept of agrodiversity, which includes four elements: management diversity, agro-biodiversity, biophysical diversity, and organizational diversity (Brookfield et al. 1999; Brookfield and Padoch 1994). Management diversity refers to the variety of methods that are deployed in managing productivity. Agro-biodiversity refers to the variety of plants and animals that are utilized in such management. Biophysical diversity refers to the ecological context in which the two previous factors arise. And organizational diversity refers to the social context that supports diversified management. Verticality, or how the environment varies at changing altitudes, is a key concept in understanding mountain farming and animal husbandry (Rhodes and Thompson 1975) and is closely related to agrodiversity.

Fieldwork was conducted in Xianggelila County, northwestern Yunnan Province, China (Fig. 1), where the Tibetan Plateau descends eastward and connects with the Yunnan Plateau, and where three large rivers—the Mekong, Yangtze, and Salween—have created vast mountainous landscapes. In the main town of the county, the average altitude is 3,459 m above sea level (asl); the annual mean temperature is 5.5°C, and the annual mean rainfall is 600 mm (Duan 1997, pp. 65–92).

In Xianggelila County, under HRS, communes are now townships, brigades are now administrative villages (Duan 1997, pp. 50–54), and production teams now include one to three hamlets. Households that previously formed a production team still tend to have close relations as members of a village group (Cunminxiaozu) in collaborative agricultural works (Duan 1997, p. 54). The village group is also the unit that utilizes community rangeland, thus I used the village group as the unit of analysis.

I selected two village groups Biyizhong and Zumugu (Fig. 1). The Biyizhong village group (BVG) is situated in the northern valley of the Yangtze tributary, which lies 40 km from the central town. The Zumugu village group (ZVG) is situated in a small basin that lies near the central town. Both groups have settlements and agricultural fields in lower-elevation valleys and basins at around 3,000 m, and their communal mountain lands cover about 10,000 ha, located around the settlements. Footnote 3 Villagers generally utilize communal mountain lands as common rangeland and there are several grazing camps which include private sheds and livestock pens that allow mobile pastoralism.

Both village groups include three adjacent hamlets. The BVG has a population of 217 in 39 households, and the ZVG has a population of 283 in 46 households. Residents of both groups are of Tibetan ethnicity, and every household cultivates its own fields. Due to its topographic location, the BVG has less flat land and more relatively steep land, while the ZVG has more flat land and land on the more gentle slopes of the mountains. These differences affect the total area of agricultural fields in each village group. While the fields in both groups are similar in size, the BVG has a total of only 1,900 ha of crop fields, but the ZVG has over three times as much, with 6,000 ha (Table 1).

Table 1 Farm crops and animal inventories of the BVG and ZVG in 2003
Full size table

The harsh mountain climate severely limits the varieties of crops that can be grown in the villages. The major crops cultivated by both groups include barley, potatoes, and turnips. Barley is the most widely cultivated crop in Xianggelila County, and roasted barley flour is one of the principal foods throughout Tibet. Barley is also used as an ingredient in homemade wine, and its straw is used as winter animal forage. The pattern of potato consumption varies by household: they are sold, bartered for rice, and/or consumed at home. Turnips are mostly used as animal feed. Oilseed Brassica is one of the few commercial crops that can be cultivated on the mountains (Long and Pan 1999, pp. 205–209). However, many villagers also gather non-timber forest products (NTFPs), such as pine mushrooms (Tricholoma matsutake) or caterpillar fungi (Cordyceps sinensis), for sale, which can provide them with significant income (Arora 2008). This has led to a gradual decline in the importance of Brassica and its growing areas. Most crops are planted from February to March and harvested from August to September. Double-cropping is less common in Tibetan communities due to climate, but the BVG is one of the few communities engaged in double-cropping due to land scarcity: barley is harvested in early August, and turnips are then planted in the harvested fields.

Since land at high elevations is less productive than that at lower elevations in terms of cultivation, every household is engaged in some kind of animal husbandry, usually with swine and bovines—yak (Bos grunniens), cattle (Bos taurus), and yak-cattle hybrids. Yak is the most common animal in and around the Tibetan Plateau (Wiener et al. 2003, pp. 62–86). The yak-cattle hybrid is superior to yaks and cattle in physique and production due to heterosis (Huang 1995, pp. 68–69). Bovines produce a wide variety of key commodities and play important roles in several aspects of villagers’ livelihoods, as they supply milk, meat, wool, and manure, and are used for plowing in the fields. Swine are also fundamental to the livelihoods of most villagers as they produce meat and manure. Some villagers also keep sheep and horses, but the total numbers of these animals are low and headcounts vary by household. Although relatively large numbers of fowl are extensively reared in the BVG, they are regarded as less important than other livestock.

The feeding areas set aside for domestic animals can be roughly divided into those around settlements and mountain rangelands. Swine, sheep, and fowl are raised predominantly within the vicinity of settlements, in fallow fields or empty lots during the day and brought within household fences at night. The feeding areas set aside for bovines vary according to household conditions and seasons. Some households raise small herds only in areas that surround the settlement, while others send a few family members to graze livestock in grazing camps away in the rangelands. Bovines account for nearly all livestock grazed in mountain rangelands, but some swine and horses are sometimes also added. Swine are fed with residue of daily production and food scraps; horses are used to carry burdens. In the research sites, bovines are the most common type of livestock, and they are reared in areas that range from lower settlements to higher mountain rangelands. This situation tends to be common throughout Tibetan communities.

Fieldwork was conducted for approximately 16 months between 2000 and 2004. Methods included participant observation, a geographical survey and semi-structured interviews with villagers and local officials. The overall research objective was to determine how rangeland use has been transformed under ecological restrictions and social changes and what the ecological consequence of these changes might be. I focused on the agrodiversity of bovine livestock. Each household’s livelihood and rangeland use strategies are reflected in their selection of bovine varieties. Interviews were conducted to establish how the villagers’ classified bovine varieties. In order to understand verticality of mountain environments, a ground truth survey regarding topography, vegetation, and the location of grazing camps was conducted with a colleague from Yunnan University, using satellite images (Landsat ETM+). Temperature loggers (Chino Co., Ltd., MR5300) were set at three sites of various altitudes and configured to take data once every hour from 5 May to 24 October, 2002. In 2003, a comprehensive survey was conducted in two Tibetan communities to investigate the number of bovine livestock, herding strategies, land tenure, and household organization.

Agro-Biodiversity of Bovine Livestock

In this section, I outline the “agro-biodiversity” of bovine varieties based on the breeding systems adopted by the villagers. In order to understand villagers’ bovine classification and breeding strategies, I selected two sample households in each village and constructed pedigree charts of the current herds. Footnote 4

Yaks Footnote 5 typically have long hair and short legs, which makes them well-suited to the mountain climate and topography. However, they are easily exhausted by heat (Wiener et al. 2003, pp. 63–64). Villagers reported that yak could not spend summers near lower settlements (around 3,000 m). The cattle (lian, male, ba, female) raised in these areas are the highland variety called Zhongdian-huangniu in Chinese (Huang 1995, pp. 69–71). Although they more adapted to an alpine environment than lowland cattle varieties, this breed is less tolerant of cold and high altitudes. Villagers reported that cattle grazing in the mountain rangeland above 4,000 m would become fatigued. As settlements tend to be at lower altitudes, cattle can be raised near settlements year-round and thus are more commonly kept than yak.

There are two ways of crossbreeding yak and cattle: female yak with male cattle, and female cattle with male yak.Footnote 6 In Xianggelila County, the former breeding pattern is dominant, while the latter is rare. Footnote 7 In the research area, a male F1 (first filial generation) hybrid weighed 1.4 times that of a male yak, and female F1 hybrids can produce more than twice the amount of milk as a female yak (Huang 1995, pp. 64–68). F1 hybrids share characteristics with yak and cattle in terms of cold and high altitude tolerance. While the male hybrid is normally infertile, the female hybrid can mate successfully with male yak or cattle. Consequently, there are several hybrid varieties that have different heterozygous ratios.

When a female F1 hybrid mates with a male yak, male and female F2 hybrid offspring are called duya and durio, respectively. When female F1 hybrids mate with male cattle, male and female F2 hybrid offspring are called gelian and geba, respectively. When an F2 durio mates with a male yak, male and female F3 hybrids are also called duya and durio, respectively. When mating between durio and a male yak is repeated, the offspring are regarded as a pure breed of yak after a certain number of generations. Villagers reported that there was a similar backcross in cattle when geba mated with male cattle (although I found no confirmed instance of this). Actual cases of backcrossing were quite rare. Villagers believe that each F2 hybrid is inferior to purebred yak and cattle. However, the milk of the female F1 hybrid (zong) is important to villagers’ livelihoods, so they strictly restrict F2 calves from suckling, and sometimes allow them to die or even kill them immediately postpartum, thus restricting the number of F2 and their progeny.

Throughout the Tibetan communities in Xianggelila County, villagers manage their own herds on the basis of only six categories: the two sexes for yak, cattle, and F1 hybrid. Footnote 8 These are easy to distinguish by their appearance. Detailed classification is important in domestic management, while broad classification is more important in general bovine rearing.

Management Diversity of Bovine Varieties on Mountain Rangelands

Households were grouped according to their bovine husbandry methods. While some households were directly involved in mobile grazing of their herds on the mountain rangelands, sedentary households kept their herds around the settlements (Table 2).

Table 2 Composition of bovine herds among different grazing strategies in 2003
Full size table

In both village groups, mobile grazing households tend to have larger families and more bovine livestock. During summer months, larger families can afford to leave household members with the herds in mountain rangelands (an average of 1.5 people) while remaining household members are engaged in settlement cultivation. Only larger families can afford such labor costs. At the same time, the ability to exploit the resources of the mountain slopes throughout the year allows larger households to raise larger herds. Conversely, sedentary households tending their herds around their settlements save labor but their herd size is limited despite the additional forage. In Tibetan households of Xianggelila County, the eldest child inherits the parents’ house and most of the bovine herds. Thus, new households that separated after livestock privatization have fewer family members and bovine livestock and graze their herds around settlements. Footnote 9

Herd composition was also found to be affected by bovine rearing methods. In both village groups, sedentary households tended to raise one or two male F1 hybrids and a few cattle and not other varieties. In the BVG, a few sedentary households had some yak, but these households entrusted their yak to relatives’ households for grazing in mountain rangeland since yak cannot be kept around settlements during the summer due to heat stress. Female F1 hybrids were also uncommon among sedentary households since they cannot be bred without female yak. On the other hand, most households raised one or two male F1 hybrids that had been given to them by relatives or purchased in the market. Since cultivation is normally practiced in small, sloping fields and does not produce much income, mechanization is not widespread. The large, heavy Indian-style plow is most common. Thus, a pair of male F1 hybrids—the most powerful and tame variety—is essential for every household. The male F1 hybrid is the most valuable variety of bovine livestock and costs approximately US$500. Households that do not have a pair of male F1 hybrids borrow from neighbors. Male F1 hybrids were used to haul out timber before the logging ban of 1998, though this is not currently a common practice. The BVG villagers allow their male F1 hybrids to roam freely in the mountains except during plowing seasons; the ZVG villagers keep their male F1 hybrids in their settlements year-round.

Cattle raised around settlements provide fresh milk and dairy products without the need for supervision of mobile grazing. In every household, butter is essential for making butter tea. Villagers indicated that three lactating cows were sufficient for an average household’s requirements. Bovines also contribute quality manure in the form of the fermented combination of floor litter (pine needles, Quercus leaves, and barley straw) and dung from their sheds. Because villagers cultivate crops only for household consumption, chemical fertilizers are rarely used and animal manure is their major fertilizer. Footnote 10 Female cattle provide milk and manure, but male cattle have little value except for reproduction; therefore, some households do not keep male cattle. The herds are grazed in a relatively narrow area around settlements, and females often mate with male cattle from other households.

To ascertain the number of bovine varieties in each household, I estimated the Gini coefficient in each village group (Table 2). Overall, there were much fewer male F1 hybrid and female cattle; the higher values of other varieties indicated the importance of bovines in every household for plowing and manure production for crop cultivation. Footnote 11 Even in households engaged in mobile grazing, these varieties are normally separated from mobile herds; the method of rearing these cattle is similar in all households.

Most mobile grazing households raised yak and female F1 hybrids in addition to two other varieties used in crop farming. Since these households extend their grazing area and have larger herds, they obtain more milk and dairy products. Most males are castrated and slaughtered before the age of 5 or 6 years, except for a small number kept for breeding. Mobile herds are composed mostly of females and their calves.

The BVG is surrounded by relatively steep mountains, and quality pastures are located at 4,000 m. Hence, female yak play a larger part in milk production. Conversely, the mountains surrounding the ZVG have gentle slopes, and most pasture is located below 4,000 m. Hence, their herds are composed mostly of female F1 hybrids. Mobile grazing households also raise male cattle for crossbreeding for F1 hybrids. However, they are not well-adapted to high altitudes and also need to mate with female cattle in the settlements. Thus, male cattle move between settlements and mountain rangeland, staying in the mountain rangelands only during short periods in the summer.

The data show that bovine varieties are allocated between settlements and mountain rangelands according their roles in dairy production and crop cultivation and their physical attributes. Figure 2 presents (2002) data from the BVG on the relationship between altitudinal and environmental changes that affect herd migration. Most settlements and crop fields are located around an altitude of 3,100 m, but their mountain rangelands extend as high as 4,500 m. Land at an altitude of 3–4,000 can be divided into four types of vegetation: pine and Betula mixed forests dominate at altitudes of 3–3,500 m, and spruce and Abies coniferous forest dominate from 3,500–4,000 m. At an altitude of 4–4,200 m, between the forest and alpine grassland areas, there is a transition zone where bushes and shrubs dominate. Above the tree line at 4,200 m the alpine grasslands mainly contain cinquefoil and knotgrass. The altitudinal migration of the mobile herds around mountain slopes (Fig. 2) follows a simple pattern of ascending to higher rangeland in summer and descending in winter. The mobile herds of the ZVG also commonly follow this pattern.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Altitudinal transition of mobile pastoralism camps in the BVG in 2002. Temperature loggers were set at three sites of various altitudes (village at 3,110 m and herder camps at 3,670 m and 4,170 m) and configured to take data once every hour from 5 May to 24 October. Daily temperatures from 0600 to 0800 were considered minimum temperatures, temperatures from 1,400 to 1,600 were considered maximum temperatures, and lapse rates were calculated on minimum and maximum temperatures. The altitudes where maximum temperature would be 13°C and minimum temperature would be 0°C were estimated based on daily lapse rates and village temperatures. Daily values of estimated altitudes fluctuated greatly; therefore, 5-day averages are shown in this figure

Full size image

Most villagers assess surrounding vegetation and ambient temperature as important factors in choosing their grazing camp.Footnote 12 I estimated two altitudinal lines where the daily minimum temperature is 0°C and the maximum temperature is 13°C. Grazing camps stayed roughly between these two altitudinal lines (Fig.2). When the temperature falls below 0°C, the rangeland becomes unsuitable for animal grazing because of snow, frost, and insufficient grass. Conversely, the respiration rate of yaks starts to rise when the temperature exceeds 13°C (Wiener et al. 2003, pp. 64, 72); therefore, rangeland located above the altitude where the maximum temperature reaches 13°C is appropriate for yak grazing.

When temperatures rise at the beginning of spring, lower altitude rangeland becomes unsuitable for yak, while rangelands above the tree line still have snow and insufficient grass growth. Herders stay in the coniferous zone and gradually move their herds to higher rangelands as temperatures increase. They reach alpine grasslands in late June and remain there for about two months. In early September, it begins to snow above 4,200 m, and the yak descend to lower rangeland coniferous forests again.

Most mobile herders return to their settlements in late October after the harvest, when they castrate and slaughter the male cattle. The herds graze in stubble fields and are fed additional forage such as turnip and barley straw. However, the BVG settlement is not large enough to support entire herds, so the mobile herds remain for only about 10 days, after which they move to mountain rangelands located relatively close to the settlements. Since milk yield decreases during winter because of forage shortages, mobile herds are left to roam free in the mountain rangelands from November to March; herders check on them once a week. At the ZVG, where most mobile herds are held at a bovine corral close to the settlement and graze close by, herders also check them once a week. In March or April, as temperatures rise, herders resume mobile herding in the rangelands.

Animal Husbandry Transition After Livestock Privatization in the 1980s

During the People’s Commune period, agrarian production, including mobile grazing, became specialized into individual sectors and only a small number of specialized farmers engaged in mobile grazing. During that time, there were only seven herds in the BVG and five in the ZVG. Footnote 13 After the implementation of the HRS, bovine livestock were allocated to every household according to size (Fig. 3). Many households saw this as an opportunity to start mobile grazing, and mobile herd numbers increased sharply to 20 in the BVG and 31 in the ZVG. The data indicate that a typical herd size ranged from 50 to 100 during the People’s Commune period and fell to around 20 after livestock privatization. For small families, this new allocation meant that mobile grazing was burdensome and less profitable than sedentary grazing. Some smaller households reported selling the yak they received and opting for sedentary grazing with only cattle and F1 hybrids due to labor constraints.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Transition of number of households engaged in mobile pastoralism since the 1980s. Note that the data for the collective farming period denote the situation just prior to livestock privitization in 1983. Data for the 1990s in the ZVG are not shown due to uncertainty of data for some households

Full size image

In the BVG, mobile herd numbers remained constant from the late 1980s to the early 1990s. Numerical data for the ZVG are absent for this period, but villagers report a similar tendency. Since different bovine varieties are deployed in sedentary and mobile herds, a large initial investment was required to establish a viable mobile herd. Moreover, villagers report an increase in logging during this period, and many households used their male F1 hybrids to transport logs, which allowed them to generate sufficient income and required less investment than mobile grazing.

After the 1990s, mobile herds gradually decreased in both research sites and, since the mid-1990s, pine mushroom gathering has flourished, particularly in the BVG, as it requires little or no investment and generates a significant income. Most villagers gather mushrooms in their community mountains, which has caused a shortage of mobile grazing workers. Thus, since the implementation of the HRS, several households have reduced their herds and ceased mobile grazing. Most now raise small bovine herds, including male F1 hybrids and female cattle, in their settlements alongside crop farming, which is enough to provide the dairy products and fertilizer they require.

Mountain herders are evenly distributed between both sexes, and most are over 40 years old, but several are teenagers and a few are in their 20s and 30s (Fig. 4). Mobile grazing households generally take the form of a three-generation stem family, where the elderly couple stays in the mountain rangelands to graze their herds during summer. However, every household, including mobile grazing households, earns most of its livelihood in the settlement. Therefore, younger couples tend to stay in the settlement to cultivate, gather mushrooms, and care for children. If an elderly couple is unable to work in the mountain rangeland, their grandchildren generally help with herding. However, because of China’s one child policy, the number of children in each family has been decreasing (Duan 1997, pp. 124–142) and at the same time the rate of school attendance has been increasing. Currently, children seldom participate in mountain herding. Moreover, since mobile herding involves hard work, a simple diet, and a severe alpine climate, many younger household members villagers are unwilling to participate. Thus, if an elderly couple retires from mobile grazing due to age or sickness, their household tend to sell their yak or F1 hybrids and shift to sedentary animal husbandry. Footnote 14

Fig. 4
figure 4

Age and sex distribution between lower settlements and mountain rangelands for research sites

Full size image

Publicly available statistical data regarding bovine rearing are limited in Xianggelila County; however, it is possible to extrapolate general patterns based on the limited amount of data that is available Footnote 15 In 1980, the bovine livestock population numbered 80,506, in 1990, 103,590 (Duan 1997, pp. 520–521), and in 2002, 115,172 (He 2003, p. 201). Implementation of the HRS has boosted livestock production since 1983. A relatively steep increase was observed in the late 1980s, and there has been a steady increase since then. From 1983 to 1990, the cattle population increased from 49,484 to 60,577. F1 hybrid populations also increased from 14,784 to 20,871, while the yak population remained constant at around 20,000. Data regarding populations from 1990 to 2003 at the county scale are not available. However, in 1990 in Gezan Township, the upper administrative unit of the BVG, yak, cattle, and F1 hybrids numbered 5,744, 3,828, and 4,008, respectively (Duan 1997, p. 502). In 1999, the yak population reached 5,724 and remains roughly unchanged, while cattle and F1 hybrids increased to 4,261 and 4,939, respectively. Footnote 16 From 1984 to 1998 in Xiaozhongdian Township, the neighboring township of the ZVG, the yak population increased slightly from 2,600 to 3,000, while cattle and F1 hybrid populations rose significantly from 8,000 to 12,000 and from 3,000 to 6,000, respectively (Xie et al. 2001). All data indicate that the yak population has grown sluggishly in comparison to the cattle and F1 hybrid populations since livestock privatization.

I cannot be sure about the precise population changes at the research sites. However, common trends in the upper administrative units of counties and townships seem to apply to individual communities. In the BVG, in the 1980s, most households started mobile grazing with about 10 yak and a few F1 hybrids. Their herd size has gradually enlarged through natural increase and the annexation of other herds, although this growth is only moderate at the household scale. Footnote 17

Villagers cited the hard work involved in mountain grazing as the main reason for the slow growth of the yak population. On the steep slopes of the mountain rangelands, herders turn their herds out to graze in the morning and leave them unattended during the daytime. In the evening, they bring their own herds back to the grazing camp. This is difficult work at high altitudes in coniferous forests. Most people can effectively manage only 20 to 30 bovines. Some also cited the rigorous work involved in milk processing. Currently, villagers process milk with a hand-powered centrifugal separator, but before the mid-1990s, they used a wooden churn and stirring rod. This required a great deal of time and labor (Xiraolamu 1987, p. 26). Because of the high labor demands of mobile grazing, greater herd numbers did not always lead to increases in production,Footnote 18 and is unpopular among small households. In addition, the significant initial investment required for newcomers to mobile grazing likely contributed to the stagnation of the number mobile grazing households, and may lead to the stagnation of yak population.

Although the yak population remained relatively constant after livestock privatization, the population of the F1 hybrid steadily increased, possibly because they were valued as draft animals for plowing and hauling timber.Footnote 19 The female F1 hybrid was also in high demand for superior milk-producing ability. F1 hybrids lactate more than twice as much as a female yak, which means that villagers can improve productivity without expanding the herd size. Footnote 20 According to older mountain herders, immediately after privatization, households possessed few female F1 hybrids but most sought to acquire more; presently, mobile grazing households generally raise more than five for milk production.

Cattle are beneficial because they can be raised at a lower elevation near the settlement year round, and households can obtain enough milk and manure without mobile grazing. This is desirable for small, newly-independent families. Cattle are raised by almost all settlement households; hence, it is likely that the cattle population has increased along with the household numbers. In addition, BVG villagers reported that the size of individual cattle herds has been expanding recently. Average households were allocated only a few cattle during livestock privatization, but some currently raise around 10 cattle.

Biased Distribution of Livestock in Mountain Landscapes from an Agrodiversity Viewpoint

The rangeland survey conducted by the Xianggelila County local government of from 1980 to 1982 to evaluate grazing capacity found instances of overgrazing (Huang 1995, p. 38). According to the report (1990) there were about 206,800 herbivorous livestock, which can be converted into 151,556 yellow cattle units (YCUs) Footnote 21 (Huang 1995, p. 56). However, the natural pasture was estimated to produce only 119,371 YCUs of grazing. Forage crops could supply an additional 28,886 YCUs Footnote 22 for a total of 148,617 YCUs. Thus consumption exceeded production by 2,938 YCUs at the county level. No detailed data are available after 1990.

Xianggelila County has annual precipitation of around 600 mm and less snowfall in winter (Duan 1997, p. 89). Footnote 23 Thus, these rangelands should be categorized as equilibrium ecosystems in which livestock grazing has a more important effect on rangeland condition than precipitation. Even so, there are several difficulties in estimating the precise value of grazing capacity (Stoddart 1960). However, this study is not concerned with assessing whether rangeland is in fact over-grazed, but rather the 1990 data are used to analyze the vertical distribution of livestock and grazing resources.

First, I estimated the constituent ratio of livestock using the State Environmental Protection Agency of China’s (SEPAC 2002) YCU coefficient values Footnote 24 for the total consumption quantities for the 1990 livestock population (Duan 1997, pp. 520, 524); yak accounted for 14% of the total consumption. Together, yak and F1 hybrids, the majority of livestock in mobile herds, consumed 49,819 YCUs, or 33% of total consumption. Footnote 25 However, in the ZVG, male F1 hybrids are usually raised at settlements year-round and even mobile herds are not always grazed on mountain rangelands. Mobile herds from the BVG graze above 3,800 m for about five months, while ZVG herds do so for fewer months. The data suggest that their consumption at alpine pasture is less than 48,174 YCUs.

Conversely, cattle were estimated to consume 60,557 YCUs, or 40% of the total consumption. They are seldom included in mobile herds and are generally grazed in and around settlements, as are other non-bovine livestock. Hence, resource use should be more concentrated at lower pastures.Footnote 26 Moreover, after 1990, yak numbers generally declined, and cattle numbers increased as villagers gradually shifted from mobile grazing to sedentary rearing.

Pasture vegetation in Xianggelila County is classified into five categories: alpine pasture, sub-alpine pasture, swamp pasture, mountain shrubby pasture, and mountain valley meadow pasture (Huang 1995, p. 48). Alpine pasture is the grassland located above 3,800 m and the tree line. According to the rangeland conditions in 1990, this pasture produced 59,127 YCUs, or 49% of the total production of natural pasture. Even when forage supplements from crop farming are included, alpine pasture accounted for 39% of the total production.

The data suggest that 66% of total resources consumed by livestock was located in the lower areas around settlements. On the other hand, alpine pasture above 3,800 m accounted for 50% of the total production of natural pasture. Thus in 1990, there was probably a notable contrast between the sparsely exploited higher pastures and the lower pastures where livestock were concentrated. After 1990, the numbers of yak generally declined and the numbers of cattle increased as villagers gradually shifted from mobile grazing to sedentary rearing at the research sites. In light of this, it can be assumed that the contrast between the types of pasture will increase.Footnote 27

Affinity Between the Current Situation and Rangeland Policy in Mountain Landscapes

Rangeland sustainability has been a critical issue for the Chinese government, and many policymakers have proposed measures to combat overgrazing in privatized rangelands (Ho 2000; Banks 2001). Most consider recent rangeland degradation to be a result of communal use under the traditional system and thus have continued to extend HRS implementation to rangelands. Through the implementation of the HRS and the related policy of “Four Complete Sets” (Sipeitao in Chinese),” Footnote 28 the government intends to promote efficient grazing within well-kept rangeland by limiting access to each pasture. These policies apply throughout Xianggelila County; nonetheless, implementation had not progressed very far during my research periods (Ban 2007; Wang 2007). Many pastures are kept as common property among village groups, including research sites.

Conclusion

This study examines the distribution of livestock in two Tibetan communities in southwestern China, which seems to be closely related to the shift from mobile pastoralism to sedentary forms of farming. Animal husbandry has become incorporated into crop farming, and the current situation is reminiscent of the mixed farming prevalent in medieval Europe. Xie et al. (2002) report a rare case where winter pastures were allocated to individual households in an experimental village in Xianggelila County. The local government suggested that villagers privately manage artificial pastures beside settlements. But generally there has been a shift to communal management to reduce costs, indicative of the fact that most households have had little motivation to develop and invest in animal husbandry, which diminishes the effectiveness of privatization.

Researchers have reported problems in the simplification of mountain mobile grazing in the two decades following privatization (Yi et al. 2007). In addition, the research presented here also found that the significant shift from mobile grazing to sedentary herding is likely to reflect issues of rangeland resource use. Anthropologists and geographers have regarded verticality as the typical method of resource use in mountainous landscapes (Brush 1976; Rhodes and Thompson 1975). This was clearly in evidence at the research sites. However, vertical mobile grazing was not the sole form of livestock husbandry, as mobile and sedentary grazing also occurred even within the same community.

This study examined the data from an agrodiversity perspective and found a significant link between livestock varieties, rangeland conditions, grazing forms, and demographic constraints. It was found that villagers tend to concentrate livestock around lower settlements, owing mainly to the decline in labor availability in the pastoral sector in part because of the popularity of mushroom picking to generate income, population decline due to the one child policy, and increased levels of school attendance, even in the most remote villages.Footnote 29 This may indicate that the social context that has sustained diverse resource use in mountain environments is being lost.

In Xianggelila County, environmental conservation has progressed under the Great Western Development Policy. The commercial logging of natural forest has been strictly restricted since 1998. Sloped crop fields are being converted into forest land and grassland in order to prevent soil erosion. Thus, in a situation that may narrow the range of livelihood choices for households, animal husbandry is expected to become a substitute source of income (Xie 2001). In fact, a mobile herd of 10 milking yak provides more than USD $800 in butter sales in 1 year. This exceeds the average income of most households (Yamaguchi 2010). However, the data suggest that villagers are likely to cease mobile grazing and shift to sedentary grazing. This trend leads to a growth in both intensively grazed and undergrazed areas. Thus, to sustain the viability of animal husbandry under these circumstances, a range of altitudinal belts will need to be utilized.

The case of Ladakh in Western Tibet, which has a cooperative system whereby households can graze their neighbors’ herds in exchange for butter or grain (Jina 1995, p. 110) may provide one solution to this problem. In Xianggelila County, some communities also organize rotational grazing systems among entire households, although this practice is mostly limited to sedentary grazing within settlements. For this to work in the study areas, herders would have to graze the communal herds on mountain rangelands in summer while independently grazing their own yak around settlements in winter. This system could alleviate labor shortages in the pastoral sector. Thus, I would argue that complex systems of cooperation are required to counter the currently disparate distribution of resource use in Xianggelila County. Rangeland privatization is inappropriate in this context, since this policy divides pastoral activity into respective household units and limits cooperative herding among households (Banks 2001; Banks et al. 2003).

While it had previously been argued that mountain regions were relatively isolated due to poor accessibility (Allan 1986), in recent decades they have rapidly been incorporated into the global economic and political arena. Although social change is evident in mountain communities, severe environments constrain production activities in these regions (Uhlig 1995).

In recent decades, mountain regions have attracted international attention from those involved in environmental conservation as biodiversity hot spots and watershed resources (Smethurst 2000). For the sake of effective conservation, it is important to understand mountain peoples’ practices with regard to the use of resources and land. As Uhlig (1995) argues, diversified environments along with altitude, or verticality, consistently impact the livelihoods of local farmers even in changing social circumstances. Therefore, agrodiversity is a useful perspective from which to examine current relations between people and their mountain environment in terms of social and environmental circumstances, which can provide important local context for the effective implementation of conservation and development initiatives.