Editor:
Thumb to Mouth? (Mailbox, July 28) When I first read of the controversy over the proposed goat dairy, my response was, “Well there they go again. Shame on those NIMBY’s!”
Then I read further. Seventy goats per acre isn’t your usual dairy. The risk to nearby residents may not be as great as the worst of the CAFO pig parlors and poultry operations in other areas, but that density is new in our area, and a legitimate cause for reasonable concerns re: odors, noise and watershed damage to downwind homes, particularly with the reality of Q fever.
Nearby residents have every right to worry that their homes may be rendered both unlivable and unsalable at one fell swoop. They have every right to expect their government to protect their rights to the safe, peaceful enjoyment of their homes. They should not be bullied, nor required to go to court at their own expense, facing off against a multinational corporation with deep pockets.
The burden of proof of safety is with Cyprus Grove. If similar farms in the Netherlands are so wonderful, show us the movie: Let us SEE contented, healthy goats grazing peacefully at that level of density. Explain why Q fever and other problems that arise with overcrowded livestock should not be matters of concern.
Otherwise, Cyprus Grove should purchase sufficient land to pasture their goats in the sane and healthy manner typical of Humboldt County. Our ranchers and dairy farmers are justly famed and deeply appreciated for the quality they produce AND the land use principles they honor.
Cyprus Grove should be held to those same standards. We love their products and applaud their success, no doubt of that. But they have absolutely no right to ride roughshod over the legitimate property rights of their neighbors.
Thumb in mouth? What if it were YOUR home in danger of being rendered both unlivable AND unsalable, with the blessings of YOUR government? Seventy goats per acre? Show us how that can be done without irremediable damage.
Nancy Woodward, Loleta
This article appears in Vulnerable Part 2.
I agree with you to a certain degree. There are very good people managing our agricultural resources in Humboldt County. Our dairy farmers are under constant pressure from outside forces to conform to Central Valley management practices unsuitable for our landscape. I encourage you to support our local farmers and Farm Bureau.
However, you say you live in Loleta. Refresh my memory, how many Clean Water Act violations have occurred on isolated, mismanaged ag parcels in Loleta? Is that enough to make you want to set up your own NIMBY shit tsunami warning system?
6 to 8 goats is considered reasonable if the region has ample precipitation — such as Humboldt county does.
http://bit.ly/qls3NP
We can discuss this issue without quoting non-authoritative Web pages’ grazing capacity figures for meat goat herds. Particularly, we discuss the sustainability of various techniques. Extensive rearing can produce a greater net margin where grazing land is inexpensive. Humboldt grazing land runs on the high side per acre which semi-intensive and intensive systems more feasible. When the cost of producing feed increases, margins will decrease accordingly.
Dairy goats are not typically raised extensively in the United States. Most goat dairies with high production of milk are using semi-intensive to intensive systems. Texas has cheap land but this land would require a few acres per goat to sustain dairy production not the mention the need for accessory shade structures to prevent overheating.
There are many variables involved. Humboldt’s cow dairy industry has to operate with the same variables in mind. Meat goats or grass-finished cattle is a different market entirely as consumers will pay a premium for this type of meat. The average consumer won’t pay a premium for extensively-raised dairy or even semi-intensive to intensively raised organic cow milk. For instance, Humboldt Creamery mixes organic milk with conventional according to the market demand for organic product.
Ian, that website above is an academic source (University of Illinois). Yes it’s for meat goats, and procedural variation as well as market conditions are fair to mention in a rebuttal. However, what are you rebutting? You should note that this letter to the editor erroneously mentions 70 goats per acre and “Dio” quoted the sustainability being between 6 to 8 goats per acre. Perhaps the two of you agree? making an argument against an academic source — with no sources at all — and with such a snarky first line, is perhaps an unwise decision. But we’re here to discuss goats, not asses.
As you said, goat dairies are not as extensively researched and documented in the US. Studies like the one “Dio” linked to are a good place to start. Granted the variations that you mentioned procedurally, as well as within the market, are worth consideration, but before they are to be validated the facts should be addressed.
According to Cypress Grove the McKinleyville land is 38 acres, which they are going to start with 200 does (5 goats per acre). That is sustainable and within the bounds to easily meet organic criteria — even in arid regions. The dilemma arises with CG’s proposed growth to 1,200 goats (still not 70, but 31.5 goats per acre.) As you mentioned, the research for goat dairies is minimal, however, if CG can financially stand prior to the growth it will take time to see if they warrant the ridicule that a few Humboldt WASPS want to sling.
The privileged citizens who wish to hide behind a vale of faux ethics constructed from misappropriated information and highjacked direct action techniques, who disregard most local businesses and job growth (typically with an exception for Marijuana production) may rear their heads and try to drum up whatever straw-man scenarios they can, but it seems that now is the time to help this facility grow within reason and wait for the “goat-apocalypse.” We’ll have a better idea about CG in two years, during which time you can conduct the appropriate research to call foul and blow your whistle. Until then, there isn’t much value to the fear mongering of a couple misguided individuals and a few privileged land owners who don’t know what agricultural zoning is but still preach, “Buy Local.”
Chavez, my apologies for the non-authoritative comment, I thought I had edited that out. Reading my post again, I see I edited words out of the middle of sentences.
I was attempting to rebut the notion that we can quote maximum stocking rates without talking about the system or the feed used. In some places, 25 meat goats per acre is normal. In others, 2 acres per meat goat is normal. Taking Midwest figures and applying them to our climate doesn’t work. I was also trying to rebut the concept that grazing land stocking rates are applicable to barn-fed dairy goats.
” But they have absolutely no right to ride roughshod over the legitimate property rights of their neighbors.”
All they did was look into buying the property. That’s it. Nobody said, including Cypress, that they had a “right to ride roughshod over the legitimate property rights of their neighbors.” Cypress hadn’t even got into developing a plan yet, and was open to community suggestion as they stated at the school. Does that sound like they felt they had the “right to ride roughshod” over neighbors?
So many assumptions were made over all this. Sad really.
Wait, the lady who wrote this lives in Loleta? Has she not noticed the smell of Loleta on a warm sunny day? Has the proximity of dairy cows, goats, sheep, and horses rendered any of the homes in Loleta unlivable or unsaleable? No! Of all people she should know better then this.