The Changes in Grassland Animal Husbandry and Herdsmen’s Life in the Qinghai Pastoral Area of China Based on the Perspective of Changes in the Grassland Property Rights System

Abstract

Based on the historical background of the changes made to the grassland property rights system, the first part of this study restores the changes in property rights systems in six major autonomous counties of grassland animal husbandry production in Qinghai region, while the second part qualitatively analyzes the changes in grassland animal husbandry operations and herdsmen’s life under the changes in property rights. The results show that, with the reform of the property rights system, the range of livestock grazing has changed from large-scale nomadic grazing to regional rotational grazing. The herds are mainly yaks and Tibetan sheep, accounting for more than 90%, with the proportion of Tibetan sheep being higher than that of yaks. The numbers of total livestock and those on the market first rose and then declined, showing a dynamic balance in recent 10 years, while the number of breeding female animals has increased year by year. Artificial grass planting has gradually become popularized in pastoral areas. The time span of livestock supplementary feeding has increased and is more scientific, and the output value of animal husbandry has increased year by year, showing a strong peak associated with intensification. The proportion of the population engaged in animal husbandry has decreased gradually with increasing population in the region. The income sources of herdsmen have become more and more diversified and are increasing year by year, and the Engel coefficient presents a downward trend. The human environment in pastoral areas has improved. Based on the above analysis, suggestions for the sustainable and high-quality production of animal husbandry under the current grassland property rights system are put forward, as well as for the construction of green organic agricultural and livestock product export land in Qinghai Province.

1. Introduction

As one of the most significant terrestrial ecosystems globally, natural grasslands provide a wide array of ecosystem services—including provisioning, regulating, and cultural services [1]—playing an indispensable role in ensuring livestock product supply, maintaining ecological security, and sustaining the stable livelihood of herders [2]. Grassland animal husbandry, centered on grazing systems, represents the primary utilization of natural grasslands. Its sustainable development is crucial to addressing key issues such as grassland ecological conservation and herder livelihood stability [3]. China, which possesses some of the world’s largest grassland areas and herding populations, has 42% of its land designated as grassland, supporting millions of residents, including ethnic minorities [4]. At the end of the 20th century, the “three grazing problems” of grassland became increasingly serious, mainly manifested in the worsening ecological environment of pastoral areas, the rising cost of animal husbandry, and the plight of herdsmen’s livelihoods. The continuous degradation of grassland environments has aroused wide concern, both at home and abroad [5,6]. Chinese scientists have conducted a large amount of research on grassland ecology, grazing management, and how to restore degraded grassland and enhance its productivity [7]. Since the late 1980s, many scholars have conducted extensive research in Tibet, Sichuan, Qinghai, Gansu, and other regions, and most international studies have touched on or focused on the factors of property rights system reforms and their impacts on grasslands. Natural endowments, grazing management, the carrying capacity of livestock, and the economic development of the contracted pastoral communities have also been discussed [8,9,10].

Qinghai is one of the five major pastoral areas in China. Its terrain is generally high in the west and low in the east, and high in the north and south and low in the middle. Located in the northeast of the Tibetan Plateau, Qinghai is known as the “source of the three rivers” and the “Water Tower of China”, and it has an important ecological position in the country [11,12,13]. According to the academic view of Mr. Ren Jizhou, there are “three interfaces” and “four production layers” in the grassland ecosystem, forming a compound ecosystem of nature, economy, and society coupled with each other, where livestock and the natural environment in which they live have formed an interdependent co-evolution relationship [14,15]. To protect the ecology of grasslands, the idea that clear water and green mountains are gold hills and silver mountains has been firmly established [16,17], as well as that the Sanjiangyuan area should be developed as a beautiful pastoral area with rich herdsmen, beautiful grasslands, and robust cattle and sheep [18]. This is not only for the purpose of historic preservation, as well as supporting the whole country and even the world, but is also a common aspiration of the people of Qinghai [19,20]. Aiming at the development of pastoral areas, the state has launched a series of grassland construction projects and introduced relevant policies to promote grassland ecological management and the transformation and upgrading of animal husbandry [21,22,23]. However, for a long time, the development of animal husbandry has been affected and restricted by many factors such as nature, technology, economy, society, and legal systems [24,25]. Migmuerzab et al. (2007) studied the issue of improving livestock production efficiency in Central Asian countries, and they pointed out that the main reasons for the low productivity of livestock at present include inadequate livestock production, high rates of livestock diseases, poor livestock infrastructure, and low quality of pastoralists [26]. Ao Renqi argued, in his 2008 paper “The Tragedy of the Commons and the Tragedy of Private Grazing Land: A Theoretical Analysis of Grazing Land Property Rights and Grazing Models—A Review of Mongolia’s Property Rights System and Grazing Model”, that the privatization of grassland property rights in Mongolia, along with a lack of planning and management regarding grazing land use, would lead to the degradation of grazing land [27]. Zultsetseg (2018) and Maisa, Urtoktao (2015) et al. provided suggestions for improving the management and operation of Mongolian pastoral areas and the development of marketization from an institutional perspective [28,29]. With the development of new institutional economics and the deepening of research in our country, people have increasingly realized the importance of institutions—especially property rights—for economic development [30,31]. The reform of the pasture property rights system has gradually broken the nomadic production of animal husbandry and the lifestyle of herdsmen [32,33], and herdsmen have begun to transition from nomadic grazing to grazing and from water grazing to settlement [34,35,36], thus optimizing the allocation of pasture resources and gradually improving the efficiency of resource utilization [37,38,39], which is of great practical significance for the development of animal husbandry and the economic growth of pastoral areas [40]. In this context, by determining the relationships between the reform of grassland property rights, the development of grassland animal husbandry, and social life in pastoral areas, more appropriate grassland animal husbandry management measures may be proposed in order to promote the combination of ecological protection and the improvement of people’s livelihood, thus forming a benign long-term cycle mechanism of building a good ecological system and sharing a better life. In this way, the present study is expected to provide certain academic value and practical significance for developing the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau into a national (or even international) ecological civilization highland.

2. Study Areas and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Grassland animal husbandry production in Qinghai is mainly concentrated in six autonomous prefectures within its jurisdiction, namely, Huangnan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Guoluo Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Yushu Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Hainan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Haibei Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, and Haixi Mongolian Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture (see Figure 1). Our research area was the area with grassland animal husbandry production in the above six prefectures. The grassland area of the 6 prefectures accounts for 13.4% of the national grassland area and 96.35% of the total grassland area of Qinghai Province.

Guoluo Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture is located in the southeast of Qinghai Province, bordering Gannan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture of Gansu Province and Huangnan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture of Qinghai Province to the east, Aba Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefecture of Sichuan Province and Garze Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture of Sichuan Province to the south, and Yushu Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture of Qinghai Province to the west. Its jurisdiction covers six counties: Maqin County, Maduo County, Gand County, Dayi County, Banma County, and Jiuzhi County.

Huangnan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture is located in the southeast of Qinghai Province, bordering Gannan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture of Gansu Province and Maqin County of Guoluo Prefecture in the southeast, and Tongde County and Guide County of Hainan Prefecture in the northwest. It has jurisdiction over Tongren County, Jianzha County, Zeku County, and Henan County.

Yushu Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture borders Haixi Mongolian Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture of the province in the north, Bayingoleng Autonomous Prefecture of Xinjiang in the northwest, Guoluo Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture in the east, Garze Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture of Sichuan Province in the southeast, and Qamdo Prefecture and Nagqu Prefecture of Tibet in the southwest. It has jurisdiction over Yushu County, Chengduo County, and Zado County.

Hainan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture is located in the eastern part of Qinghai Province, because it is located in China’s largest saltwater lake “Qinghai Lake” south of the name, the whole prefecture has jurisdiction over five counties. The pastoral areas under its jurisdiction are mainly distributed in Gonghe County around Qinghai Lake area, the south of Guide County and Guinan County.

Haibei Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, located in the northeast of Qinghai Province, has jurisdiction over 3 counties and 1 autonomous county. The pastoral areas under its jurisdiction are mainly distributed in Haiyan and Gangcha counties around the Qinghai Lake region and Qilian County in the northern Qilian Mountains.

Haixi Mongolian and Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture is located in the northern part of Qinghai-Tibet Plateau and the western part of Qinghai Province. It has jurisdiction over 3 county-level cities and 3 counties. The pastoral areas under its jurisdiction are mainly in Wulan and Dulan counties, around Delingha City and Tanggula area under Germu City.

2.2. Data Analyses

Through a review of historical data, Local Chronicles, Statistical Yearbooks, and other materials, this study sorted out the historical evolution process of grassland property rights change in Qinghai pastoral areas, carried out historical restoration of the evolution of the grassland property rights system, qualitatively analyzed the development trend of grassland animal husbandry under different property rights systems and the changes in various factors affecting the development of grassland animal husbandry, and conducted horizontal and vertical comparative analysis of the obtained data. This process provided a detailed and reliable factual basis for the following theoretical analysis. The second part, based on each period divided in the first part, involves qualitatively analyzing the changes in indicators affecting the development of grassland animal husbandry under different property rights systems through collating the data from Local Chronicles and Statistical Yearbooks, allowing for a horizontal and vertical comparative analysis of the obtained data. Finally, according to the current implementation of the grassland property rights system, rational suggestions for the sustainable development of grassland animal husbandry are put forward.

3. Results

3.1. Historical Evolution of Grassland Property Rights System in Qinghai Province

The reform of the grassland property rights system in Qinghai mainly experienced five periods, as shown in Figure 2.

3.1.1. Tribal Ownership System of Grassland Property Rights in Pre-Feudal and Feudal Society

According to historical records, the Qiang ethnic group, with more than 100 tribes and no obvious class, first lived in Qinghai. Centered on Qinghai Lake, they lived by water and grass and lived as nomads. The grassland was owned by clans and tribes, who raised a large number of cattle, sheep, horses, and other livestock regardless of class [41,42]. At the beginning of the fourth century, Tuyuhun of the Xianbei nationality, with 1700 families, moved from the Liaodong province in northeast China to Qinghai Province, where they lived together with the local Qiang people and gradually replaced the original Qiang people as the masters of the grassland, forming the powerful Tuyuhun people [43,44,45] and establishing a feudal political system. Since then, Qinghai pastoral area has transitioned from a pre-feudal primitive society into a feudal society.

There were three forms of possession of grassland: one was tribal possession, in which the land is owned by princes and hundreds of households, which was the main form of possession of grassland and livestock. The second was the possession of land by the upper level of the monastery. In the Yuan Dynasty, the chiefdom system was established and Lamaism was promoted. The influence of the monastery increased in this area, leading to the possession of land by the upper level of religious entities. The third was the possession of land by shepherds and chieftains [46,47]. The feudal lords had the right to internal distribution of the means of production, such as pasture and livestock, and the right to external control, such as buying, selling, giving, and transferring. The vast herdsmen, as members of the tribe, possessed lower-quality land and few livestock [39]. Throughout this historical period, the production and management mode of animal husbandry remained simple and extensive for a long time. The purpose of single-animal husbandry production was mainly to meet the vast majority of living needs such as food, clothing, housing, and transportation in pastoral areas. Although the tribal ownership of grassland property rights was inefficient in promoting social and economic development, it led to the accumulation of valuable experience for the development of grassland animal husbandry in later periods.

3.1.2. Collective Public Ownership of Grassland Property Rights After the Founding of New China

After the founding of the People’s Republic of China, Qinghai—like the whole country—opened a new chapter in building socialism, and the social system underwent fundamental changes. The change in the grassland property rights system experienced two periods: first, a primary production cooperative was formed by herdsmen from 1949 to 1958, which was called the “mutual assistance cooperative system”, meaning that people help and cooperate with each other to achieve a common goal; second, the people’s commune system was implemented from 1958 to 1978, which is the basic unit of socialist structure in our country.

• Collective public ownership of grassland property rights during the democratic reform period.

In the second half of 1955, under the influence of the wave of agricultural cooperatives in the country and the province, the provincial government decided to set up animal husbandry cooperatives on a trial basis in pastoral areas, starting from the development of the mutual assistance cooperative system. It adopted the working policies of “Proceed cautiously and steadily” and “From top to bottom”, and implemented the policies of regional ethnic autonomy of “no fight, no distinction, no class division” and “herders and masters benefit both sides” [48,49]; that is, free grazing with no class distinctions. As the embryonic stage of socialist collective ownership, the mutual assistance cooperative system adopts the method of differential transformation of the two different ownership systems of landlords and herdsmen. Herdsmen establish and join primary production cooperatives in accordance with the principles of mutual assistance and mutual benefit, adopting the purchase policy for herdsmen, mobilization to join the state-owned or public–private joint farms, and emphasizing that herdsmen voluntarily join and are free to withdraw from the community [50].

In August 1956, a number of primary animal husbandry production mutual cooperatives were established, with 790 herdsmen in the cooperatives, accounting for 1.17% of the total number of herdsmen. After two years of the pilot trial, a total of 45 animal husbandry primary mutual aid production cooperatives and 1 public–private joint pasture had been established [51]. In just a few years, animal husbandry rapidly resumed development, and the vast pastoral areas were prosperous. In January 1958, the Fifth expanded meeting of the second session of the CPC (Qinghai Provincial Committee) proposed to complete the socialist transformation of animal husbandry within five years [43]. This transformation was resisted and revolted against, to varying degrees, by the shepherd class and the religious upper class. Armed rebellion broke out in pastoral areas in April. Combined with the counter-insurgency struggle, the steps of socialist transformation were accelerated to the end of July, and the six autonomous prefectures in pastoral areas (except Guoluo and Yushu) announced the realization of mutual cooperation with the other four prefectures [52]. Obviously, the socialist transformation of animal husbandry accomplished under these circumstances had a very shaky foundation. This rate of development beyond the objective reality has caused a large number of livestock deaths and serious destruction of grasslands.

• Grassland property rights were owned by the whole people during the period of people’s commune

In September 1958, the upsurge of the people’s commune was set off, and the “one-step” reform of the grassland property rights system to the people’s commune system was realized. Under this system, pastoral property rights are collectively owned by the people’s communes, most of the livestock are owned by the people’s communes, and a small part of the self-kept livestock are owned by the herdsmen, realizing the concept of “double public ownership” of pasture property rights and livestock; that is, public ownership is an economic system relative to private ownership. Under this system, private ownership of the means of production disappears, and the means of production, such as grassland and livestock, do not have exclusive possession [53,54,55]. The herdsmen in the community work in a unified manner, carry out unified planned animal husbandry production, and the output of labor is owned by the collective, distributed in an egalitarian manner, and the production and management system of government–community integration is implemented. By the end of 1958, 108 people’s communes had been built in pastoral areas and more than 70,000 pastoral households had joined them, accounting for 74.22% of the total number of households in pastoral areas [56].

Practice has proved that, at that time, the economy of pastoral areas was relatively backward, the rebellion had just subsided, and animal husbandry production was severely affected. Under this circumstance, the people’s commune was owned by the whole people, and the level of animal husbandry production, the cultural level of herdsmen, and the organization level of the people’s commune could not adapt to each other. This “big rice pot” (referring to the practice of equal distribution of goods and services) state seriously affected the enthusiasm of labor herdsmen.

3.1.3. The Household Contract Management Responsibility System of Grassland Property Rights After the Reform and Opening-Up

In the spring of 1982, Gande County of Guoluo Prefecture, according to the will of herdsmen, took the lead in implementing a county-wide system of responsibility for animal husbandry contracted to the household, implementing the production responsibility system of “livestock at the price to the household, private and private raising, independent management, and long-term unchanged” as the main form, while a few poor areas implemented the free return of livestock to the household. In the autumn of 1983, the Qinghai Provincial Committee of the Communist Party of China issued the Trial Measures on Implementing the Household Responsibility System for Livestock Farming, which clearly stipulated the contracting methods for livestock, pastures, production tools, and facilities, and the whole pastoral area began a new round of pilot reform of the pasture property rights system [57]. In November 1984, the Central Government issued Document No. 1 and carried out the promotion of the responsibility system of “livestock pricing to households”; that is, the responsibility system of “livestock contracting to households” [58]. The implementation of this system, due to the public nature of grassland and private nature of livestock, led to overgrazing, grazing disputes, and an inability to effectively protect, harness, and utilize grassland, among other problems. In 1993, the provincial government promulgated the “Qinghai Grassland Contracting Law”, which further issued clear provisions on the contract term of grassland, the legal confirmation of the right of use, the paid use of grassland, and the specific technical requirements of the contract, and stipulated that the contracting of grassland to the household would not change for 50 years. Since then, the new policies of “double contracting of grass and livestock” (i.e., the grassland is divided into sections and contracted to the herdsmen, and the livestock is valued and distributed to the herdsmen) and “double rights and one system” (i.e., the responsibility system of ownership, use, and contracting of grassland to households is implemented, where the ownership belongs to the state, the use right belongs to the herdsmen, and the herdsmen contract the grassland for animal husbandry) have been implemented in the pastoral areas. In other words, the ownership and use rights of grasslands and the paid contract management responsibility system have been implemented, where the grasslands will continue to be owned by the state and the collective, and the use, management, and circulation rights of grasslands and livestock ownership rights will be owned by the herders; this is called the “household contract responsibility system” [59,60].

3.1.4. Ecological Animal Husbandry Cooperative System Under “Three Rights Separation”

In 2008, Qinghai Province put forward the “ecological province” strategy and new requirements for building “ecological civilization pilot zones”, and decided to take the lead in establishing a “National grassland ecological Animal Husbandry Pilot Zone” in Qinghai [61], which provided a rare opportunity for the development of livestock husbandry in Qinghai and injected vitality into the development of grassland animal husbandry. The “separation of three rights” means that ownership, contracting rights, and management rights have both overall utility and respective functions, where the main role is to activate the right of management. The ecological animal husbandry cooperative system aims “to establish herdsmen cooperative economic organizations as the carrier, to protect the ecological environment, scientific use of grassland resources, change the mode of production and management and optimize the allocation of production factors as the key content, through specialized production, intensive and large-scale management, market operation, social services to achieve sustainable development of grassland animal husbandry” [62,63]. At present, there are 961 animal husbandry cooperatives, which have brought dividends to 115,000 herding households, and have taken the lead in exploring new animal husbandry resource allocation mechanisms such as the “joint-stock system”, “joint household system”, “large household system”, and “surrogate animal husbandry system” in the country’s pastoral areas [64]. The implementation of the “ecological animal husbandry cooperative” has not only led to great achievements in the economic benefits of pastoral areas, but has also enabled certain achievements in terms of ecological restoration and improving people’s livelihoods. Herdsmen have moved to relocation points in easy places, allowing people to gather together in a village in winter and raise livestock in cooperatives, preventing livestock from being affected by snow disasters and hunger in winter and spring.

3.2. The Influence of the Property Right System on Grassland Animal Husbandry

3.2.1. Influence on Livestock Grazing Form

• Grazing forms

Seasonal nomadism is the most prevalent and fundamental production method in grassland animal husbandry on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau, shaped by its unique geographical landform, natural ecology, and other factors. Over the years—except for some strategic migrations—the main grazing forms of herdsmen have remained largely unchanged [65,66,67]. Herdsmen adapt to seasonal changes according to the natural conditions of the grasslands with the changes of the seasons, which is also called seasonal nomadism, as illustrated in Figure 3.

The pastures in Qinghai are divided into distinct seasonal zones, including winter pasture, spring pasture, summer pasture, and autumn pasture. Spring pasture and autumn pasture are transitional pastures, and are usually combined into two pastures: cold and warm season pastures. There are no strict location rules for pastures, depending mainly on terrain, water, and vegetation conditions. Generally speaking, places with high terrain and water are used as warm season pastures, while places with low terrain, shelter from the wind, and exposure to the sun are used as cold season pastures. Around the end of September and the beginning of October every year, the herders began a large shift, moving livestock from the warm season pasture to the cold season pasture; the next year, around the middle of June, the livestock are again moved from the cold season pasture to the summer pasture, and in mid-August to mid-September to the autumn pasture, even in the same pasture, livestock moved between the camps.

• Grazing management

Herdsmen’s grazing arrangements are not simply “living by water and grass”, but have adjusted in accordance with the reform of the grassland property rights system [42,48], as detailed in

Table 1. Different grazing management-related property rights systems.

Period	Ownership	Right of Use	Grazing Range	Grazing Arrangements
Clan tribe	Ruling class	Distributed by feudal lords	Fixed in a certain area for a period of time	Large-scale nomadic
Mutual Assistance and Cooperation	Country/Herdsman	Herdsman	Demarcated administrative areas	Rotational grazing by season
People’s Commune	Nation/Collective	Production team	Township/Town	Rotational grazing by season
Household Contract	Nation	Farm household	Contracted pasture	Rotational grazing on owned pastures
Ecological Animal Husbandry Cooperative	Nation	Farm household	Integrated available pasture	Rotational grazing by season

Data sources: References [22,44,50,55,68].

.

During the clan tribe period, all the tribes lived in a relatively fixed area for a long time and engaged in animal husbandry production [43]. With the increase in the number of livestock and frequent natural disasters in successive years, the grasslands in the region were degraded and deserted. In order to make a living for the herdsmen in the tribe, all the clans left these degraded grasslands to look for better grasslands. The nomadic range is from 150 to 200 km and, in the event of war during this period, the nomadic range can reach hundreds of kilometers or more [41]. After the founding of the PRC, during the short period of mutual assistance and cooperation, the government began to divide the boundaries of pastures according to the scope of mutual cooperatives, and the scope of animal husbandry production was relatively fixed. During the period of people’s communes, grassland was allocated to the township and town production teams for operation and use, warm and cold season pastures were divided in the township and town, and cold and warm season grazing was carried out alternately. The implementation of the “household contract responsibility system” brought about a fundamental change in the property rights of grassland: the “double contract for grass and livestock” has led grassland to possess the attributes of a commodity, where herdsmen have a relatively complete right to their use, as well as transfer and profit rights, and their enthusiasm for production increased in an unprecedented manner. With the gradual improvement of infrastructure in pastoral areas, the mortality rate of livestock decreased year by year and the number of livestock increased rapidly during this period; however, herdsmen could only graze in the grassland contracted by themselves, and families with small pastoral area grazed practically in the same area all year round. Such overloaded and fragmented utilization of grassland is not conducive to the restoration of vegetation, and has resulted in the large-scale degradation of grassland [68,69]. In order to achieve sustainable development of the ecological environment, the state began to implement the cooperative system operation mode of “separation of three rights” in rural areas [70]. Qinghai took the lead in re-integrating the production resources of grassland animal husbandry, implementing the “ecological animal husbandry cooperative system”, dividing the grasslands, prohibiting the grazing of severely degraded grasslands, and integrating the available grasslands jointly. As such, livestock began seasonal rotation over a wide area [71].

3.2.2. Impact on Herd Structure

• Changes in main livestock composition

With the reform of property rights, the structure of the main herds for grazing has adjusted accordingly (Figure 4). For many years, the main livestock herds have been yaks and Tibetan sheep, accounting for more than 90% of the total. In addition to Haixi autonomous Prefecture, the number of yaks and Tibetan sheep in the other five prefectures exceeds 95% of the herds. This is the result of herdsmen carrying out a long process of selection and domestication, thus obtaining strong and robust livestock breeds suitable for survival in plateau pastoral areas; for example, those possessing cold resistance and sand resistance. The yak is a unique breed in the study area, with strong cold resistance. When herbivorous, yak pulls all the stems and leaves of forage into its mouth, which not only optimally utilizes resources but also is beneficial for the recovery of forage growth. Over the years, the proportion of yaks in the herd has fluctuated little in each period. In the period of mutual aid and cooperation, the average proportion was 21.41%; in the people’s commune period, the average proportion was 21.51%; the average proportion in the period of the household contract responsibility system was 20.81%; and the average proportion in the ecological animal husbandry cooperatives period is 27.02%. Tibetan sheep typically account for more than 65% of the herd, and the average proportions in the mutual aid and cooperation and people’s commune periods were 69.78% and 72.56%, respectively. After the implementation of the household production contract responsibility system, with the relatively fixed pastoral use rights, in order to adapt to the market economy and the livelihood needs of herdsmen, the economic cycle return rate of grazing small livestock is higher than that of large livestock. Moreover, wool can be rolled into felt, sheep skin can be made into leather, and mutton is the conventional food of herdsmen. Therefore, the number of Tibetan sheep has gradually increased and become the main body of the herd structure. The proportion of Tibetan sheep in the herd reached a peak in 2005, which was 76.72%, and the average proportion in this period was 73.64%. After entering the period of ecological animal husbandry cooperatives—especially under the influence of the policy of balancing grassland and livestock and banning grazing and stopping grazing in certain areas after 2010—the number gradually decreased, accounting for an average of 67.93%. Historically, horses—as an important means of transportation in pastoral areas—have occupied an important position in the whole herd. With the decline of mobility of herders brought about by the improvement of transportation in pastoral areas, the popularization of motor vehicles, and the reform of property rights, the number of horses has plummeted each year, accounting for 7.34%, 3.13%, 1.66%, and 0.67% on average in the four periods, respectively. Camels used to be one of the main means of transportation, as well as a symbol of status and wealth. However, due to the difficulties of raising camels in winter and the need for a large amount of forage, herdsmen do not raise camels on a large scale; as such, they have typically accounted for a very low proportion in the herd structure. At present, the breeding of camels is mainly concentrated in the Wulan area of Haixi autonomous State. The average proportions in the four periods were 1.45%, 2.99%, 3.89%, and 4.37% respectively.

Data sources: References [72,73] and state online annual statistical reports.

• Proportion of main livestock and breeding capacity of female stock

Based on the statistics presented in Figure 4, the predominant livestock grazing on grasslands are yaks and Tibetan sheep. Therefore, subsequent calculations focus exclusively on these two types of animals. According to the agricultural industry standard of the People’s Republic of China (NY/T 3647-2020), the number of herbivorous livestock can be uniformly converted into sheep units for statistical purposes. A sheep unit is defined as a standardized measure of livestock; specifically, a 50 kg ewe with lamb that consumes 1.8 kg of hay per day, containing 14% moisture and 8–10% crude protein. Following the NY/T 3647-2020 standard, where 1 yak is equivalent to 3 sheep units and 1 Tibetan sheep equals 1 sheep unit. The total number of livestock in stock, total number of livestock onset to market, and total number of fertile female livestock in the main years are presented in Figure 5.

Data source: State Statistical Annual Reports.

Since 1949, the number of livestock in stock initially increased and then decreased, and then maintained steady development within a certain number. During the mutual assistance and cooperation and people’s commune periods, the average number of livestock was 20.12 and 31.62 million sheep units, respectively. In 1958 and 1962, the number of livestock decreased due to the influence of social and political factors at that time [42], then rebounded rapidly in the following years. In 1995, the number of livestock reached a peak of 46.73 million sheep units. This has a lot to do with the reform of property rights after the implementation of the “household contract responsibility system” [74]. The gradual clarity of property rights stimulated the development of productive forces, and herdsmen gradually gained rich experience in herding and enhanced their ability to deal with natural disasters. Driven by their economic interests, the number of herding animals gradually increased, and the average stock during this period was 42.72 million sheep units; however, the grasslands began to deteriorate [75]. This phenomenon has aroused the attention of the government, who began to gradually determine the unit area of livestock carrying capacity and control the number of storages. Therefore, the number of livestock gradually declined and, by 2020, the number of livestock was 3105.2 sheep units, and the average stock during this period fell to 3278.67 sheep units. There exists a positive correlation between the number of livestock on the market and the number of livestock kept, and the gap between the two is gradually narrowing, The average number of livestock on the market in the four periods was 141.53, 246.27, 889.23, and 1946.35 sheep units, respectively. Meanwhile, the number of breeding female livestock has increased steadily, averaging 852.38 and 1778.74 sheep units during the mutual assistance and cooperation and people’s commune periods, respectively; after the implementation of the household contract responsibility system, there was a significant increase due to the influence of the property rights systems and socio-economic development [76], with more herders gradually improving breeds and increasing livestock reproduction rates due to family livelihood needs, leading to an average increase in the number of breeding female livestock to 3311.41 sheep units. Subsequently, due to decreases in stock and market numbers, adjustments were made to the number of breeding female livestock during the ecological animal husbandry cooperative period, averaging 2860.77 sheep units.

3.2.3. Impact on Animal Husbandry Production

• Changes in natural grassland vegetation

The yield of natural grassland is the basis for developing grassland animal husbandry and is an important indicator used to measure the sustainable utilization of grassland. Qinghai is a typical high-altitude area, and conventional grassland detection methods are not easy to carry out. Satellite remote sensing and model-based research provide new methods to obtain large-scale vegetation information. Vegetation coverage and vegetation productivity, represented by the normalized vegetation index (NDVI) and net vegetation primary productivity (NPP), can be regarded as early warning indicators of grassland degradation that reflect a grassland’s health status and potential to provide ecological services, as well as allowing for monitoring of grassland vegetation fragmentation and bare soil patch development [77], as shown in

Table 2. The changes in NPP for natural grassland.

Data (Period)	Result	References
GIMMS (1982–1999)	The period from 1990 to 1991 witnessed a sharp decline, with no significant trend from 1982 to 1990. From 1991 to 1999, there was a significant increase of 7 × 109 g C per year.	Piao et al. [78]
GIMMS (1982–2000) SPOT (1998–2009)	NPP fluctuated and increased by 13.3%, NPP increased significantly in 32.56% of alpine grassland, and NPP decreased significantly in 5.55% of grassland.	Zhang et al. [79]
GIMMS (1980–2015)	The grasslands area increased at the rate of 1.08 g Cm-2a-1, and 75.13% of the grasslands area was significantly improved, with a slight negative trend in the northwest grasslands.	Xiong et al. [80]
MODIS (2000–2017)	Increased at a rate of 0.61 g Cm-2a-1, NPP increased significantly in 31.34% and decreased significantly in 0.68% of grasslands.	Yu et al. [81]
MODIS (2006–2015)	The overall grass yield (total) showed an upward trend, peaking in 2013 at close to 4000 × 104t, and slightly began to decline in 2014. The total grass yield in other years remained at about 2800 × 104t.	Lv et al. [82]

Note: The normalized vegetation index (NDVI) can reflect the land vegetation cover and vegetation growth status, and is an important index for vegetation macro monitoring. The data are obtained by satellite remote sensing images. At present, there are three kinds of NDVI long time series data products: SPOT (vegetation sensor on the SPOT-4⁺ satellite) NDVI, MODIS (moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer) NDVI and GIMMS (global inventory modeling and mapping studies) NDVI.

according to the conducted literature review.

Since 1961, the NPP of the grassland has shown a trend of overall increase and local decrease, the NPP of the eastern and central regions has increased, and the NPP of the northwest has shown negative growth. Since 1980, NDVI has also shown a decreasing trend from southeast to northwest. On the inter-annual scale, the NDVI generally presents a slow growth rate of 0.011 per decade. Before 2000, the NDVI showed an overall increase. After 2000, existing studies have not reached a unified consensus. In the early 21st century, the grass yield decreased by 30% to 80%, compared with the 1950s, and the proportion of poisonous weeds in some areas was as high as 76%, mainly due to the doubling of livestock in the 1980s and the abnormal reclamation of grassland. The root cause is that the reform of property rights system stimulated the development of productivity. Herdsmen are driven by economic interests, resulting in the external dis-economy of the grassland. After 2004, with the implementation of ecological protection and grassland construction projects, grassland grass yield gradually increased.

• Construction of artificial grassland

In the whole grassland animal husbandry production process, forage production is the foundation [83]. Although Qinghai has a large area of natural grassland, the output per unit area is low [84,85]. In order to alleviate the contradiction between grass and livestock, artificial grass planting is considered to be the most promising grassland development strategy [86]. Since the 1950s and 1960s, the creation of artificial grassland has been gradually and vigorously carried out to alleviate the problem of lack of grass and livestock conservation in winter and spring. Artificial grass planting is mainly carried out to reclaim natural grassland with low yield through planting perennial or annual forage or crops, mainly used as a beating pasture or winter pasture. With the gradual determination of grassland property rights, the planting conditions of artificial grassland have also changed accordingly; for example, water resources and the terrain of grassland contracted by herders are the main factors affecting the construction of artificial grassland. The yield of artificial grassland in areas with low terrain and high groundwater level can reach 5 to 6 times that of natural grassland, or even higher. However, planting artificial grasslands also requires mechanized equipment and related artificial inputs, with minerals such as fertilizers needed to increase soil nutrients. With the changes in livestock ownership and grassland property rights, the gap between the rich and the poor has become more obvious, and artificial grasslands cultivated by families that can afford these production inputs have higher yields.

• Changes in livestock breeding methods

With the change in livestock transfer range and the increase in livestock quantity, the average biological yield of natural grassland in Qinghai began to decline year by year from the 1960s, and the natural forage nutrition of alpine meadows showed seasonal changes [87,88], resulting in an imbalance between the supply and demand of livestock and forage grass. The limited nutrients that livestock can obtain from natural grassland ultimately affects the performance of livestock production. Especially in winter and spring, such contradictions become increasingly prominent [89]. Since then, moderate supplementary feeding has gradually been promoted [90] (

Table 3. Livestock breeding methods under different property rights systems.

Period	Farming Methods
Clan tribe	Mainly free-range nomadic.
Mutual Assistance and Cooperation	Most herders began weeding ahead of time to reserve forage for their livestock to overwinter.
People’s Commune	Mowing, buying fodder for the winter, herdsmen began to feed moderately in the cold season.
Household Contract	Mowing, buying winter concentrate feed, good conditions of the family for warm season nutrition supplement.
Ecological Animal Husbandry Cooperative	Planting grass, mowing grass, buying winter concentrate feed, warm season nutrition supplement, etc.

Data source: References [44,55,68].

), guiding herdsmen to change their traditional breeding methods, who have gradually changed their livestock from grazing to house feeding. In the cold season, due to the lack of forage supply and the decrease in livestock weight, concentrate feed mixed with corn, rapeseed meal, soybean meal, wheat, and salt is used as a supplement [91]. In the warm season, according to the lack of energy, protein, vitamins, and mineral trace elements, livestock are supplemented with appropriate nutrition lick blocks, salt bricks, and mineral sustained-release pills [92].

3.3. The Influence of Property Rights Systems on Social Life in Pastoral Areas

3.3.1. Impact on the Population Engaged in Animal Husbandry

• Proportion of the population engaged in animal husbandry

The core of grassland animal husbandry is grazing, but the sustainability of its operation lies in the balance and continuous development of the three core elements: “grass–animal–human” [93]. The activities of animal husbandry cannot be separated from the participation of people, who play a dominant role in the production of animal husbandry. With the reform of property rights, the number of people engaged in animal husbandry production has also changed correspondingly [94], as shown in Figure 6.

Data source: Reference [73] and state online annual statistical reports.

Before 1982—that is, in the mutual assistance and cooperation and people’s communes periods—the total population of Qinghai Province and the permanent population of the six considered prefectures showed a rapid rising trend; by the end of 1980, these populations were 3.76 million and 1.03 million, respectively. There is a strong correlation between the number of people engaged in animal husbandry and the number of permanent residents in the six states and, at the end of 1980, the number of people engaged in livestock production in the six states was 940,000. From 1985 to 2015, the number of permanent residents in the six states showed a trend of rapidly increasing at first, followed by a slow increase, which was the same as the change trend of the total population of the province. While the number of people engaged in animal husbandry did not change much, the gap with the total local population gradually increased, indicating that the proportion of people engaged in animal husbandry in the total population was declining. This is related to the diversity of industries, especially during the period of ecological animal husbandry cooperatives, when the county government categorized and placed those capable of engaging in animal husbandry production into animal husbandry cooperatives for livestock grazing and breeding, gradually dispersing the surplus labor force, which began to flow into the secondary and tertiary industries in pastoral areas, such as serving newly built hotels and catering, sales of livestock products, and agriculture.

• Division of labor

According to the evolution of property rights, the division of labor of herdsmen has also correspondingly adjusted, as shown in

Table 4. The division of labor in the production of animal husbandry.

Period	Male	Female
Clan tribe	Young men take on tasks such as herding and hunting.	Young women cook, milk, and take care of the family.
Mutual Assistance and Cooperation	Men in the labor force are involved in livestock production.	Women in the labor force are engaged in milking, making livestock products, etc.
People’s Commune	Men are mainly responsible for most of the labor, such as animal husbandry production, installing fences, and planting.	Women assisted men in livestock production and took care of the family.
Household Contract and animal husbandry cooperatives	Men are responsible for the operation of cooperatives, overall planning of livestock production, and do most of the livestock labor.	Women assisted men in livestock production and took care of the family.

Sources, References [44,50,55], and a large body of literature.

.

Women have always played an important role in promoting the development of animal husbandry and, in the hearts of the Tibetan people, the social status of women is respected [95]. Before the democratic reform, herding was basically done by men, while women were mainly engaged in some internal work. Since the democratic reform period, adult men and women in the labor force have participated in animal husbandry production, where men are mainly engaged in outdoor grazing, repairing sheds, installing fences, and other heavy physical labor activities, while women mainly assist men in animal husbandry production, produce animal products (e.g., yogurt, cura, ghee, etc.), and take care of the family.

3.3.2. The Impact on the Output Value of Animal Husbandry

Animal husbandry is the leading industry in the six considered prefectures of Qinghai (Figure 7). The impacts of property rights on the development of animal husbandry indirectly affect the local living environment and the livelihoods of herdsmen.

Data source: References [72,73].

According to Figure 7, both the gross output value (including agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry and fisheries) and the output value of animal husbandry showed an annually increasing trend. From 1978 to 1986, both output values were relatively low, and the output value of animal husbandry accounted for 75.97% of the total output value. After the implementation of the household contract responsibility system, the economy developed rapidly and the total output value of agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry, and fishery, as well as the output value of animal husbandry, increased significantly. After that, the output value of animal husbandry in 1990 was more than three times that in 1978, and the total output value was 2.88 times that in 1978. From 1990 to 2008, the two kinds of output value showed a gentle growth trend overall; furthermore, while the growth rate was not large, the proportion of animal husbandry in the total output value gradually decreased. After 2010, the two kinds of output value increased greatly. In 2010, the two kinds of output value was nearly twice that in 2006, and the proportion of animal husbandry in the total output value gradually diminished, consistent with the overall development of society; namely, the diversification of industrial development caused the proportion of animal husbandry in the output value to gradually decline. In the statistical process, it was found that animal husbandry accounted for more than 75% of the total local output value for Guoluo Prefecture on average, showing a strong industrial advantage, while that for Haixi Prefecture was lower, at about 40%. The output value of animal husbandry accounted for an average of more than 60% of the total output value in the six states.

3.3.3. The Impact on the Life of Herdsmen

• The change in the humanistic environment of herdsmen’s life

It is quite common for indigenous tribes to migrate to other places, or for tribes from other places to integrate into local areas after migration [96]. The integration of cultures from different regions and the cross-fusion of living habits among herdsmen have led to the formation of new living habits, resulting in corresponding changes in the human environment of the pastoral areas [97]. With the contracting of pastures to households, the original nomadic production and lifestyle in pastoral areas has been broken and, with the accelerated process of urban–rural integration over the past 10 years, the probability of mutual influence and collision between cultures has gradually increased. As such, the life concept of herdsmen has undergone a profound change, and they have begun to pay attention to their own cultivation and their children’s cultural education [98]. As shown in

Table 5. Education level of different age groups (unit, percent).

Age Group	Education
	Illiteracy	Primary School	Junior School	Senior School and Above
8 to 20 years old	0.00%	1.19%	5.32%	19.13%
21 to 30 years old	0.06%	2.26%	14.09%	19.45%
31 to 40 years old	1.19%	3.19%	3.26%	1.01%
41 to 50 years old	2.26%	13.96%	1.06%	0.06%
Over 51 years old	8.28%	3.10%	1.13%	0.00%
Total	11.79%	23.70%	24.86%	39.65%

Data source: State Statistical Annual Reports.

, the educational level of herdsmen engaged in animal husbandry has gradually improved, where the educational level of middle school for those in the age range of 21–30 years is 24.86%. High school education level or above accounted for 39.65% of those concentrated in the age ranges of 8–20 and 21–30 years old. Some graduates give up the opportunity to struggle in big cities and go back to their hometown to invest in local animal husbandry production, injecting new vitality into the development of local animal husbandry. The enrollment rate of children in the six prefectures and counties has increased year by year, and the retention rate of nine-year compulsory education has reached more than 95%. Herdsmen have gradually paid attention to the training of their children in all aspects, and families with good conditions have even sent their children to study at schools in cities.

• Changes in herdsmen’s income

Production performance reflects the sustainability of livestock husbandry in grasslands [99]. For herders, the ultimate goal of animal husbandry production is to provide a lasting income stream to meet the needs of animal husbandry reproduction and diversification of consumption [100]. The family income of herders includes the sale of whole live livestock, fur, and dairy products; furthermore, individual herdsmen take migrant work as the main source of family economy. Due to the existence of the time value of money, the change in the income of herders will change with the changes in the inflation rate and the nominal interest rate of the bank. The inflation rate (p) published by the National Bureau of Statistics in 2022 was 3.7% [73]; assuming that the nominal interest rate (r) is 1.5%, according to the formula (1 + real interest rate) (1 + inflation rate) = 1 + nominal interest rate, we can calculate the real interest rate as i = −2.12%. Then, we can calculate the change in income according to the actual interest rate D_i = D₀ (1−i)ⁿ, where D_i represents the income over several years, D0 represents the income of the base period, and n represents the number of years passed to the considered time point. The specific change trend is shown in Figure 8.

Data source: Reference [73].

According to Figure 8, the per capita annual net income of herdsmen increased exponentially, with slow growth from 1980 to 1992 and rapid growth after 1992, which is consistent with the overall economic development trend of society. This shows that the life of the people in the pastoral areas is getting richer and richer and, by the end of 2020, the entire pastoral area had achieved poverty alleviation. The Engel coefficient showed an overall downward trend, except for a large fluctuation in 1996. According to the survey and relevant records, a serious snow disaster occurred in the pastoral areas in 1996, which covered a large area of grassland with snow, resulting in the death of a large number of livestock due to cold starvation. More than 1000 herdsmen were trapped by heavy snow and suffered frostbite or even froze to death, thus affecting the total income of herdsmen in that year [101]; this caused the Engel coefficient to increase. Over the past 10 years, the Engel coefficient has been relatively stable, fluctuating between 30 and 33%, indicating that the quality of life of people in pastoral areas is increasing, which is consistent with the overall development of the social economy.

• The change in income composition of herdsmen

With the change in property rights, the income composition of herders has also gradually changed, as shown in Figure 9.

Data source: Reference [66] and State Statistical Annual Reports.

In general, the income of herdsmen associated with animal husbandry production has accounted for more than 80% of the total household income of herdsmen. Before the implementation of the household contract responsibility system, especially before 1995, this proportion was more than 90%, and the difference between the highest year and the lowest year was 17%. In general, the proportion of income earned by herdsmen through individual operations and other industries has increased annually, from 2% in 1980 to 8% in 2023, and from 2% in 1980 to 16% in 2023, respectively. Other income includes income from migrant work, local tertiary industries, and harvesting cordyceps.

4. Conclusions

By tracing the property rights changes in Qinghai grassland and the changes in grassland animal husbandry production and herdsmen’s livelihoods, we can finally draw the following conclusions. From the perspective of animal husbandry production, the reform of the grassland property rights system has affected the resource allocation of animal husbandry elements. The range of livestock grazing has been adjusted accordingly, from nomadic migration over a large area to seasonal rotational grazing, then to small-range grazing based on “family” units and, finally, to seasonal rotational grazing over a larger area. The changes in the range of rotational grazing have affected the herd structure of grazing livestock, the number of grazing livestock, and the breeding stock correspondingly; notably, the proportion of breeding females in the herd has been gradually increasing. In the herd structure of grazing livestock, the proportion of yaks and Tibetan sheep is greater than 90% and, except for Haixi Prefecture, these livestock account for more than 95% of the total herd. In particular, the number of Tibetan sheep in the herd is greater than that of yak. The number of grazing animals gradually increased from the 1980s, reaching a peak of 46.73 million sheep units in 1995, after which the number of livestock has gradually declined slowly, reaching 3105.2 sheep units in 2020. The change in the number of livestock has led to the application of moderate supplementary feeding and artificial grass planting, and the annual average time span of moderate supplementary feeding has gradually expanded, ranging from simple supplementary feeding of concentrate feed in cold season to the comprehensive supplementary feeding of concentrate feed and protein, mineral elements, and other nutrients in cold and warm seasons.

From the perspective of life in pastoral areas, the reform of property rights has gradually reduced the proportion of people engaged in animal husbandry production, which is related to the diversification of the industrial distribution in pastoral areas, consistent with the overall development of society. The responsibilities mainly associated with animal husbandry production are concentrated on men, with women generally assisting men to complete animal husbandry production. The output value of animal husbandry showed a stepped upward trend, and the proportion of the animal husbandry output value in the total output value (including agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry, and fishery) showed a downward trend; however, it still occupied a large proportion, from the highest value of 87.21% to the lowest value of 61.33%. The cultural environment in pastoral areas has gradually improved, and the educational level and life concept of herdsmen present good trends. Notably, the per capita net income of herdsmen showed an exponential upward trend, while the Engel coefficient showed a downward trend.

5. Suggestions

The proposal of the No. 1 Document of the Central Committee in 2024 has led to new achievements in promoting the comprehensive revitalization of rural areas by improving the rural work system and mechanism, strengthening rural reform and innovation, and improving the diversified investment mechanism for rural revitalization. The reform of the property rights system brought new requirements for the protection, construction, and development of grassland-based industries in the country, as well as providing new opportunities for the transformation and upgrading of the industrial structure of grassland animal husbandry. After sorting out and analyzing the effects of the historical evolution of grassland property rights and property rights reforms on animal husbandry production and social life in pastoral areas, the following suggestions are put forward.

5.1. Optimize the “Three-Rights Separation” Management Model to Lay a Solid Foundation for Property Rights System Reform

For a long time, the national policy has focused on the integration of grassland resources through grassland transfer, and the pastoral cooperative organization is the main operation mode of grassland animal husbandry at present. Therefore, it is necessary to improve the splitting of grassland contracting and management rights; promote the separation and parallelism of ownership, contracting, and management rights; and develop grassland animal husbandry cooperatives according to the local conditions. First, in accordance with national and local laws and regulations, the current management and operation mechanisms of ecological animal husbandry cooperatives should be standardized, and the system of cooperatives, including the management level and governance capacity of their internal managers, should be improved. Second, it is necessary to explore the formation of an institutional system in line with the development of local industries, combining local customs, the cultural environment, and herdsmen’s wishes, with the goal of ensuring ecological protection, herdsmen’s livelihoods, and industrial prosperity, organically combining formal and informal systems to constantly optimize the institutional system of professional grassland ecological animal husbandry cooperatives, thus successfully obtaining the institutional benefits of cooperatives.

5.2. Improve the Guarantee Mechanism for the Reform of the Property Rights System and Form a New Pattern of Integrated Development of Industrial Management Entities

First, under the current dual-track operation of ecological animal husbandry cooperatives and village collective stock economic cooperatives, ecological animal husbandry cooperatives in Qinghai should realize resource integration and large-scale management through the means of grassland and livestock shares, clarify the responsibilities, rights and obligations of cooperative institutions and members, group livestock shares according to class, and rotate grassland grazing on the basis of animal husbandry development. We will adhere to the principle of combining ecological protection with production development, encourage herdsmen to protect the grassland ecology, improve the efficiency of breeding production, explore the integrated development of diversified industrial management entities, pay attention to the integrated development of the secondary and tertiary industries, carry out in-depth processing and sales services of livestock products, establish a joint interest mechanism between herdsmen and the market, and attract more dynamic capital entities to participate. We will enhance the comprehensive development capacity of cooperatives, broaden income channels, increase the efficiency of animal husbandry and increase the income of herdsmen, and finally form a strong driving force for the win-win situation of ecology, production and life. Second, it is necessary to activate the vitality of the herdsmen’s means of production units, enterprise units, village collective economic units, and scientific and technological personnel units; give full play to the role of joint-stock ecological animal husbandry cooperatives; continue to broaden financing channels for the construction of cooperatives; and drive capital financing for the production of grassland animal husbandry and the circulation of livestock products. Third, we must continue to improve the rural revitalization talent service system—such as the current formation of science and technology special commissioners, science and technology missions, and other scientific and technological talents to the countryside service measures—in order to consolidate the results achieved; at the same time, multiple talent service market channels should be opened, building a long-term mechanism for the creation of talent teams to serve rural areas.