Green crop–livestock circular agriculture is an important pathway to promote ecological protection, efficient resource utilization, and sustainable agricultural development. Its core lies in promoting mutual benefits between cropping and livestock farming, achieving resource closed loops, and applying eco-friendly management to enhance the overall efficiency of modern agricultural ecosystems.
As agricultural policies and technical conditions continue to evolve, the development of green crop–livestock circular agriculture faces challenges such as difficulty in integrating technologies, low efficiency in organizational collaboration, and insufficient institutional support, limiting its large-scale and systematic promotion. Transitioning green crop–livestock circular agriculture from pilot projects to widespread adoption requires a systematic review of key technical paths, multi-stakeholder participation mechanisms, and institutional guarantees. By optimizing integrated cropping–livestock technologies, establishing collaborative mechanisms, and improving policy incentives and risk-sharing systems, we can enhance its standardized operation, support the organic integration of smallholder farming with modern agriculture, and achieve harmony between ecological protection and agricultural development—driving agriculture toward green and high-quality growth.

I. Typical Technical Models of Green Crop–Livestock Circular Agriculture
Under the deepening concept of green development, green crop–livestock circular agriculture is widely recognized as a key pathway for sustainable agricultural development. Its core is to build an internal “material–energy” cycle system in agriculture, enabling efficient resource use and mitigating ecological pressure.
According to the Technical Guidelines for Green Agricultural Development (2018–2030), by 2030 China’s comprehensive utilization rate of livestock and poultry manure will exceed 85%, and the comprehensive utilization rate of crop straw will remain above 88%.
From the perspective of systemic metabolism, China’s technical paths for green crop–livestock circular agriculture can be divided into two typical models, led respectively by crop farming and livestock farming:
1.“Crop → Livestock → Return-to-Field” Pathway
Led by crop farming, this model uses crop byproducts such as straw and stubble as feed resources for livestock, then processes manure through anaerobic fermentation, composting, etc., and returns it to the field, creating an internal material closed loop. This model achieves waste recycling, improves resource utilization efficiency, reduces environmental burden, and enhances system stability—representing a typical closed-loop agricultural ecosystem practice.
2.“Livestock → Crop → Processing” Pathway
Led by livestock farming, this model builds manure treatment facilities for harmless processing and resource utilization, then reuses the outputs in cropping systems to form a reverse resource loop. This pathway helps reduce fertilizer use and control straw burning and is an important agricultural practice supporting China’s “dual carbon” goals.
Technological support is key to developing green crop–livestock circular systems. The resource utilization of manure is fundamental, with widely applied technologies including biogas fermentation, solid–liquid separation, and composting. The goal is to improve conversion efficiency and resource recovery rates. Precision nutrient management technologies, through scientific cropping–livestock ratios, crop rotation systems, and soil-based fertilization strategies, enhance input efficiency and reduce environmental pollution.
The introduction of intelligent ecological monitoring systems further enables dynamic oversight and fine-grained management. Leveraging IoT, remote sensing, and big data technologies enables real-time monitoring of soil, water quality, and manure emissions, providing decision-making support for fertilization and livestock density control.
For example, in Jiaxing City, Zhejiang Province, a digital agricultural information platform has been established to precisely match manure treatment with fertilization needs, enabling intelligent manure allocation and full-process traceability. This case illustrates the critical role of technology integration in green agricultural transformation and demonstrates valuable local exploration in promoting agricultural informatization, resource circulation, and ecological friendliness.

II. Multi-Stakeholder Governance Structure and Organizational Model Evolution
Beyond technological integration, governance structures and institutional arrangements are decisive for the sustainable operation of green crop–livestock circular agriculture. This practice involves multiple stakeholders, including smallholder farmers, family farms, cooperatives, leading agricultural enterprises, local governments, and third-party technical and service agencies, forming a highly complex participation structure.
Because the operational mechanism of circular agriculture relies heavily on systematic collaboration among diverse stakeholders, governance structures must establish cross-stakeholder collaborative mechanisms, breaking away from traditional loosely organized farming models, to integrate technology, resources, information, and benefits effectively.
(1) Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration as the Basic Governance Unit
In developing green crop–livestock circular agriculture, the spatial heterogeneity of resources, the complexity of technical linkages, and the multidimensional nature of governance goals mean that no single stakeholder can ensure efficient agricultural operation and ecological function release alone. Therefore, multi-stakeholder collaborative governance is necessary and forms a crucial foundation for institutionalizing circular agriculture.
Current collaborative practices in circular agriculture form three typical organizational models:

• “Enterprise + Base + Farmer” Model: Enterprises provide technology and market support, farmers produce, and enterprises uniformly collect products and byproducts, forming a stable crop–livestock cooperation chain.
• “Cooperative Union” Model: Multiple cooperatives unite within a region to share resources, technology, and market opportunities.
• Village Collective Economy–Led Model: Integrating local land and livestock resources to promote integrated village-level circular agriculture, enhancing collective economic returns.

These three models embody the “co-construction–co-governance–co-sharing” logic of circular agriculture. They represent different institutional pathways—market-oriented enterprise-led, mutual-assistance cooperative union–based, and grassroots governance led by collective economy organizations. Over time, these models tend to integrate and complement each other, evolving toward a “technology–resource–property rights” collaborative governance system to address increasing complexity and the need for multi-stakeholder governance.
(2) Institutional Mechanisms Determine Governance Efficiency
The effective operation of multi-stakeholder collaboration depends on institutional mechanisms that achieve incentive compatibility, information symmetry, and benefit coordination. Good institutional design reduces transaction costs, enhances contract enforcement, and improves collective action efficiency.
Contract mechanisms are fundamental to ensuring stable cooperation. They must clearly define responsibilities, benefit rights, and risk allocation. Some regions have adopted “manure recovery + product purchase” dual contract mechanisms, effectively integrating upstream and downstream relationships and enhancing manure return efficiency.
Benefit-sharing mechanisms also directly influence participation incentives. A fair distribution system based on input proportion, ecological performance, and market value growth encourages green practices and safeguards weaker stakeholders’ benefits.
Resource-sharing platforms—covering agricultural equipment, manure processing facilities, green certification services, training, and information—are critical to improving governance efficiency. For example, Jiangsu and Zhejiang have explored “crop–livestock service centers” and “manure scheduling platforms” that digitally match manure resources with farmland needs, enhancing cycle efficiency and resource allocation.
(3) Organizational Model Evolution Toward Systemic Collaboration
As circular agriculture moves from pilot demonstration to regional adoption, organizational models evolve from dispersed to systematic, from loose cooperation to platform-based collaboration. Boundaries expand toward cross-region, cross-department, and cross-ownership collaboration, with governance structures becoming networked and multi-centered, significantly enhancing resource integration and cross-sectoral coordination.
Organizations’ functions are expanding from single production to providing services and ecological governance, integrating manure transport, product marketing, technology dissemination, environmental performance monitoring, and green standard enforcement into a “organization–service–governance” model.
Platform-based operation, empowered by digitalization and intelligent systems, is becoming central to governance evolution. Collaborative platforms integrate resource allocation, benefit coordination, technology sharing, and credit evaluation, transitioning from point-based cooperation to chain-linked coordination—lowering transaction costs, increasing transparency, and enhancing system efficiency and scalability.

III. Pathways for Building Long-Term Mechanisms in Green Crop–Livestock Circular Agriculture
Sustainable operation requires both internal motivation of agricultural operators and systematic policy tools that shift green practices from “subsidy dependence” to “market embeddedness.” Addressing uncertainty through risk governance mechanisms and standardized institutional frameworks ensures adaptability and stability across regions and contexts. Localized innovation and scenario embedding transform scattered successful experiences into replicable institutional models, scaling policy from “spot demonstrations” to “system integration.”
(1) Activating Internal Momentum and Linking External Incentives
Promotion of circular agriculture relies on sustained internal motivation and effective external incentives. Traditional subsidies play a role early on but have diminishing returns. A composite incentive framework based on performance orientation, market mechanisms, and ecological value monetization is needed.
Fiscal subsidies, ecological compensation, carbon trading, and green credit tools enhance the economic attractiveness of circular agriculture. For example, integrating agricultural carbon reduction into carbon markets strengthens environmental goals while providing tangible income for farmers.
An ecological compensation mechanism based on measurable indicators (carbon footprint, soil organic matter improvement, etc.) can connect green behavior with economic benefits. Green credit, interest subsidies, and organic certification rewards should match crop–livestock models to reduce costs and financing barriers. Support for “eco-label + premium sales” can boost market value and form a positive chain from production to consumption.
(2) Multi-Dimensional Risk Control and Standard System Integration
Circular agriculture faces uncertainties from climate variability, market fluctuation, and policy change. A cross-sectoral risk control system is needed, including dedicated green agriculture insurance covering manure treatment failure, product oversupply, etc., and “green order farming + government guarantee” mechanisms to stabilize expectations.
A standardized green system covering inputs, production, output, and environmental performance is essential. Linking certification outcomes with subsidies and financing creates a governance bridge between government support and market incentives.
(3) Institutional Experimentation and Policy Feedback for Replication
Institutional development must integrate “top-down” policy with “bottom-up” feedback. Local pilot projects, such as “Green Crop–Livestock Circular Agriculture Demonstration Zones” and “Carbon Farmland Pilot Counties,” serve as incubation platforms for innovation. An “evaluation–replication–promotion” chain enables broader adoption. A national knowledge platform for green agriculture can consolidate case studies, standards, and tools to guide tailored institutional design, making iterative experimentation and policy feedback a core driver of scaling circular agriculture nationally.