|
|
|
|
|
Kathleen Sanderson wrote:
I DO disbud my goats. Yes, it's a nasty job, but it's better than repeatedly having to cut stuck goats out of the fence, or, worse, finding one too late after it has gotten it's head caught in the fence and died there. Horns are little or no protection against dogs, although I've had horned goats use their horns to gore sheep that they were pastured with (and they had plenty of room). I've never had a horned goat try to use it's horns on me, but wouldn't want to have them around young children.
We NEVER use horns as handles even when I do have a goat with horns, because there are nerves and major blood vessels inside the horns, and goats absolutely hate to have their horns even touched, let alone used as handles. So that's another thing to consider, if you are concerned about the goats. I keep collars on mine, and handle by the collars. Mine are also bottle-raised, so I have never had any problem with catching them.
Horns are a part of the goats' cooling system, so if it gets hot where you live, that is something else to consider. I suspect that in the winter, dark-colored horns are also part of the goats heating system, as wild goats could lay out on a rock ledge in the sun, even on a cold day, and the horns would warm up, warming the blood that circulates through them. But that is speculation on my part.
If you plan to milk your goats, and you plan to leave the horns on them, you'll have to build specially-designed milking stands, or just tie the goat up next to a fence and sit on the ground to milk, perhaps.
I have, as you can see, mixed feelings about leaving horns on goats vs. disbudding. If we lived on a large acreage with fences that goats couldn't get their heads stuck in (or even better, didn't need fences at all), I'd probably leave the horns on my goats. We don't, so I disbud.
Kathleen
Morganic Farms wrote:
Thanks, so far, for your replies and input.
Getting rich is not my motivation. I am interested in establishing a resource that can continue to produce a yield indefinitely after an initial investment of capitol with minimal maintenance costs. My motivation is to feed people.
An acqaintance of mine owns 150,000+ acres in Utah. The current operations are, in my opinion, being mismanaged and much of the land is not even being utilized. My friend doesn't mind too much though: 1. because the entire thing is less than 1% of his net worth 2. because the farm gets close to breaking even each year and 3. he just has to show that he is using the water in order to keep the water rights. I want to put together a proposal to implement some permaculture design principles on this land.
Can you imagine a food forest that is 200+ sqare miles growing in the middle of the desert in Utah? This is what I first envisioned after watching a youtube video of Geoff Lawton in 'Greening the Desert'. The line, "You can solve all of the world's problems in a garden." struck me. An entrepreneur solves problems. People are unemployed and can't feed their families. That's a problem. This could be an amazing example of permaculture's viability which would help persuade farmers to move away from traditional techniques and start a global trend toward permaculture.
Jocelyn Campbell wrote:
Interesting. Though the myth he's debunking is not one I've heard of. I've heard tell of conifer wood chips making it harder for plants to thrive, not all-out killing them. It makes sense that it's unlikely that conifer wood chips would kill plants.
The article mentions that cedar inhibits bacteria and fungi. That's a positive when you want your wood to last in the outdoors, but not so much in the garden. Thoughts?
I think the good Doctor may have been getting her information from the 7th link down.
brice Moss wrote:
how do they tolerate heavier soils? I've got to much clay to easily grow potatoes so I'm looking for a substitute, and crowds out the weeds sounds perfect for me for a starch producing patch