Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Analysis
  • Published:

Decoupling livestock and crop production at the household level in China

Nature Sustainability volume 4, pages 48–55 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Animal manure used to be the major source of additional nutrients and crucial for maintaining soil fertility and crop yield in traditional farming systems. However, it is increasingly not recycled, wasting vital resources and damaging the environment. By using long-term (1986–2017) data from a rural household survey (>20,000 households) across China, here we show that the share of rural households with both crop planting and livestock raising (CPLR) has sharply declined from 71% in 1986 to only 12% in 2017. Compared with households with only crop planting, the CPLR households apply less synthetic fertilizer and more manure per cropland area. However, manure production in one-third of CPLR households has exceeded the nutrient requirement of crop growth on their croplands. Rebuilding the links between livestock and croplands at a regional scale thus provides vital opportunities for the sustainable intensification of agriculture in China.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Decoupling of livestock and cropland.
Fig. 2: Temporal changes of shares of households and draught animals and machinery use.
Fig. 3: Temporal changes of fertilizer and manure use.
Fig. 4: Farmland size, animal-stocking density and synthetic N fertilizer use.
Fig. 5: Spatial variations of share of CPLR households and draught animals in all surveyed villages across China.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data of the main findings can be found in the Supplementary Information, and any further data that support the findings of this study are collated from literature sources as cited or available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Source data are provided with this paper.

References

  1. Griggs, D. et al. Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 495, 305–307 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. FAOSTAT: FAO Statistical Databases (FAO, 2020).

  3. Bai, Z. et al. China’s livestock transition: driving forces, impacts, and consequences. Sci. Adv. 4, r8534 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Oenema, O. Nitrogen budgets and losses in livestock systems. Int. Congr. Ser. 1293, 262–271 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sutton, M. A. et al. Our Nutrient World: The Challenge to Produce More Food and Energy with Less Pollution (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, 2013).

  6. van Grinsven, H. J. M. et al. Reducing external costs of nitrogen pollution by relocation of pig production between regions in the European Union. Reg. Environ. Change 18, 2403–2415 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sutton, M. A. et al. Too much of a good thing. Nature 472, 159–161 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Gu, B., Zhang, X., Bai, X., Fu, B. & Chen, D. Four steps to food security for swelling cities. Nature 566, 31–33 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhang, C. et al. Rebuilding the linkage between livestock and cropland to mitigate agricultural pollution in China. Resour. Conserv Recycl. 144, 65–73 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gu, B., Ju, X., Chang, S. X., Ge, Y. & Chang, J. Nitrogen use efficiencies in Chinese agricultural systems and implications for food security and environmental protection. Reg. Environ. Change 17, 1217–1227 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gu, B., Ju, X., Chang, J., Ge, Y. & Vitousek, P. M. Integrated reactive nitrogen budgets and future trends in China. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 8792–8797 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ma, L. et al. Exploring future food provision scenarios for China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 1385–1393 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wu, Y. et al. Policy distortions, farm size, and the overuse of agricultural chemicals in China. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 7010–7015 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ju, X., Gu, B., Wu, Y. & Galloway, J. N. Reducing China’s fertilizer use by increasing farm size. Glob. Environ. Change 41, 26–32 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fan, L. et al. Decreasing farm number benefits the mitigation of agricultural non-point source pollution in China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 26, 464–472 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Naylor, R. Losing the links between livestock and land. Science 310, 1621–1622 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Willems, J. et al. Why Danish pig farms have far more land and pigs than Dutch farms? Implications for feed supply, manure recycling and production costs. Agric. Syst. 144, 122–132 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Garnier, J. et al. Reconnecting crop and cattle farming to reduce nitrogen losses to river water of an intensive agricultural catchment (Seine basin, France): past, present and future. Environ. Sci. Policy 63, 76–90 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. National Data (National Bureau of China, 2019).

  20. Bai, X., Shi, P. & Liu, Y. Society: realizing China’s urban dream. Nature 509, 158–160 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Zheng, C., Liu, Y., Bluemling, B., Mol, A. P. J. & Chen, J. Environmental potentials of policy instruments to mitigate nutrient emissions in Chinese livestock production. Sci. Total Environ. 502, 149–156 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Cui, Z. et al. Pursuing sustainable productivity with millions of smallholder farmers. Nature 555, 363–366 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Bai, Z. et al. China’s pig relocation in balance. Nat. Sustain. 2, 888 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhang, X. et al. Managing nitrogen for sustainable development. Nature 528, 51–59 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. van Grinsven, H. J. M. et al. Costs and benefits of nitrogen for Europe and implications for mitigation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 3571–3579 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Oenema, O. et al. in The European Nitrogen Assessment: Sources, Effects and Policy Perspectives (eds M. A. Sutton et al.) 62–81 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011).

  27. The Technical Guidelines for Measuring the Bearing Capacity of Soil Contaminated by Livestock and Poultry Manure (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, 2018).

  28. Gu, B. et al. Toward a generic analytical framework for sustainable nitrogen management: application for China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 1109–1118 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Project of China (2016YFD0201304, 2018YFC0213300), National Natural Science Foundation of China (41822701 and 41773068), National Social Fund of China (18ZD48) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2019XZZX004-11). S.R.’s contribution was supported by the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) National Capability programme SUNRISE (NE/R000131/1).

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Shuqin Jin, Bin Zhang.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Center for Rural Economy, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of China, Beijing, P.R. China

    Shuqin Jin, Bin Zhang, Bi Wu, Yu Hu & Jie Chen

  2. Environmental Policy Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Shuqin Jin & Arthur P. J. Mol

  3. School of Economy, Hebei University, Baoding, P.R. China

    Dongmei Han

  4. Department of Land Management, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, P.R. China

    Chenchen Ren & Baojing Gu

  5. College of Environmental and Resource Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, P.R. China

    Chuanzhen Zhang & Baojing Gu

  6. School of Economics and Management, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing, P.R. China

    Xun Wei

  7. School of Economics, Nanjing Audit University, Nanjing, P.R. China

    Yan Wu

  8. UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Penicuik, UK

    Stefan Reis

  9. European Centre for Environment and Health, University of Exeter Medical School, Knowledge Spa, Truro, UK

    Stefan Reis

Authors
  1. Shuqin Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bin Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bi Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dongmei Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yu Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chenchen Ren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Chuanzhen Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Xun Wei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Yan Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Arthur P. J. Mol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Stefan Reis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Baojing Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Jie Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

S.J. and B.G. designed the study. B.W. prepared the data. B.Z., Y.H., C.R., C.Z. and B.G. analysed the data and prepared the figures. B.G. wrote the paper, and S.R. revised the paper. All authors contributed to discussing the results and writing the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Baojing Gu or Jie Chen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Locations of the selected villages of the Fixed Observation Rural Survey (FORS).

Base map produced using GADM data (https://gadm.org/).

Extended Data Fig. 2 Locations of the selected counties of Fixed Observation Rural Survey (FORS).

Base map produced using GADM data (https://gadm.org/).

Extended Data Fig. 3 Examples of daily account.

The daily account of rural household on all their production and consumption activities related to agriculture.

Extended Data Fig. 4 The proportion of household and industrial livestock farming systems in 2010s.

a, production proportion; b, farm number proportion. Fixed Observation Rural Survey (FORS) normally can cover household livestock farms, but not industrial farms which are operated by independent companies. But due to the number of industrial farms is less than 1% of total livestock farms in China, normally not survey but statistical counting of industrial farms is used.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 5 Spatial variations of manure and machinery use in all surveyed villages in 2017 across China.

a, manure share in crop-only households; b, manure share in Crop planting and livestock raising (CPLR) households; c, machinery use in crop-only households; d, machinery use in CPLR households. Base map produced using GADM data (https://gadm.org/).

Extended Data Fig. 6 Temporal changes of fertilizer use in Crop only and CPLR households.

a, application rates of synthetic phosphorus (P) fertilizer; b, application rates of synthetic P fertilizer in Crop planting and livestock raising (CPLR) households with different livestock density; c, application rates of synthetic potassium (K) fertilizer; b, application rates of synthetic K fertilizer in CPLR households with different livestock density. Crop - only crop planting; Livestock - only livestock raising; CPLR - crop planting and livestock raising; <15, 15-30, 30-75 and >75 refer to livestock raising density with pig equivalent per ha cropland in CPLR households. Error bars refer to standard errors (SEs).

Source data

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary methods and Table 1.

Source data

Source Data Fig. 2

Statistical source data.

Source Data Fig. 3

Statistical source data.

Source Data Fig. 4

Statistical source data.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 4

Statistical source data.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 6

Statistical source data.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jin, S., Zhang, B., Wu, B. et al. Decoupling livestock and crop production at the household level in China. Nat Sustain 4, 48–55 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00596-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00596-0

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Microbiology

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Microbiology newsletter — what matters in microbiology research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Microbiology