The herder's math: why more animals ≠ more income

For a herder, having more animals can seem like the obvious way to increase income. More goats means more cashmere. More sheep means more wool. More animals means more meat, more milk and more products to sell. But there is another number that matters just as much: how much land those animals depend on.

Mongolia has one of the largest livestock populations relative to its human population in the world. In recent decades, livestock numbers have increased dramatically. Between 1987 and 2020, Mongolia's productive rangeland decreased from around 124 million hectares to 110 million hectares, while livestock numbers more than tripled. A recent World Bank report estimates that livestock numbers in some areas have reached between two and seven times the land's carrying capacity. That is where the math starts to change.

More animals, less pasture

Mongolia's pasture is not an unlimited resource. It is a living system that has to recover after being grazed. When too many animals depend on the same land, plants have less time to recover. Repeated grazing can reduce vegetation cover, expose soil and make the pasture less productive. Climate change and extreme weather can make this even harder for the land to recover.

The World Bank estimates that between 70% and 88% of Mongolian pasture is degraded by overgrazing, depending on the assessment and methodology used. The UN Convention to Combat Desertification has also estimated that around 70% of Mongolia's pastureland has experienced some degree of degradation from a combination of overgrazing and climate change.

These numbers are important, but behind them are individual herders trying to make a living. So the question cannot simply be “How do we reduce livestock numbers?” The better question is “How can a herder earn more without needing more animals?”

The fibre math

This is where quality becomes important. A Mongolian sheep can produce roughly 2 to 2.4 kg of greasy wool per year, according to FAO data. A cashmere goat produces much less. Depending on the animal and location, raw cashmere production can be around 250 to 340 grams per goat.

That means it takes several goats to produce enough fibre for a single cashmere sweater. The UNCCD estimates that around four to eight cashmere goats are needed to provide enough fibre for one sweater.

Yak fibre is different again. FAO data on Mongolian yaks reports that adult animals can produce around 1.31 to 1.75 kg of total fibre when harvested, although this includes different types of fibre, from coarse outer hair to finer down. The amount of usable down varies depending on the animal, age, sex, breed, location and harvesting method.

So when we look at these numbers, it becomes clear that not all kilograms of fibre are worth the same amount. One kilogram of low-value fibre and one kilogram of high-quality fibre may require very different amounts of work and may have very different effects further down the supply chain. This is where the idea of quality over quantity becomes important. The problem with simply adding animals Imagine a herder has 100 goats. If the market rewards them mainly for producing more cashmere, one way to increase production is to add more goats.

But those goats still need pasture. If the land can sustainably support 100 goats but the herd grows to 150, the extra 50 animals do not come for free. They require more forage, more water and more pressure on the same ecosystem. If the pasture becomes degraded, the animals may become less productive as well. Poorer nutrition can affect body condition, fibre production and the ability of animals to survive difficult winters. At that point, the herder can end up with more animals but not necessarily a healthier business.

The alternative is to increase the value produced by each animal. What if the same 100 animals could generate more income because the fibre they produce was higher quality, better processed and sold at a higher value? The herd does not have to grow at the same rate as the income. This is the calculation we are interested in.

Quality has value

For a fibre brand, it is easy to look at production as a simple equation:
More animals = more fibre = more products.
But there is another equation worth considering:
Better animals + better fibre + better prices = more value per animal.

That changes the incentive. Instead of rewarding volume alone, a market can reward quality. For herders, this could mean that improving the quality of the fibre from an existing herd becomes more valuable than continuously increasing the number of animals.

It does not mean that every herder can simply reduce their herd and immediately earn more. Real life is more complicated than that. Herders have to deal with weather, market prices, livestock losses, access to buyers, household needs and the unpredictable nature of pastoral life. But the principle is important. If the market wants sustainable production, it needs to make sustainability economically worthwhile.

The value chain matters

This is also where we believe brands have a responsibility. The price a customer pays for a finished garment is much higher than the value of the raw fibre at the beginning of the supply chain. Between those two points are processing, manufacturing, transportation, design, retail and many other costs.

The question is how much of the final value can make its way back to the people producing the raw material. If a herder receives more value for better fibre, then quality becomes worth pursuing. If a brand can build a relationship with producers and understand where its materials come from, it can begin to make decisions based on more than simply finding the cheapest available fibre.

This is one of the reasons we care so much about traceability and our Digital Product Passport system. We want the journey from pasture to product to be easier to understand. Because the person buying a sweater should not have to see only the finished garment. They should be able to understand that the fibre started somewhere. It started with an animal, a herder and a piece of land.

The bigger picture

Mongolia's rangelands have supported pastoral life for thousands of years. The problem is not livestock themselves. Livestock are an essential part of Mongolian life, culture and the rural economy. The problem is what happens when the number of animals, the condition of the land and the economic incentives surrounding production stop balancing each other.

There is no single number of animals that is sustainable everywhere in Mongolia. Carrying capacity changes depending on rainfall, pasture type, season, location and weather conditions. That is why sustainable production cannot simply mean “fewer animals.” It needs to mean making each animal more valuable. If a herder can earn more from a smaller, healthier and better-managed herd, then the economic incentive starts moving in the same direction as the environmental one. That is the kind of math we want to encourage. Not more animals at any cost. More value from what already exists. Because ultimately, the goal is not to take more from the land.

It is to make a living from it while making sure there is still enough left for the next generation.