Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTAYN LTR to BOH (7_2026)1 July 31, 2026 Yarmouth Board of Health 1146 Route 28 South Yarmouth, MA 02664 Re: Opposition to Stable Permit and Animal Permit Applications – 88 Mill Lane Dear Members of the Board: As abutting property owners and for the record, we respectfully submit this letter regarding the application for a Stable Permit and Animal Permits for approximately 30 goats and 2 donkeys at 88 Mill Lane and any related variance requests. I. The Application Violates the Stables Regulations. Applicants’ Site Plan appears to locate stables, corrals, hoofed animals, and manure area within less than 250 feet of the high-water mark of a source of shellfishing, contrary to Section 202- 2(D). The application also proposes to start with 32 hoofed animals on only 1.44 acres of corral, exceeding Section 202-2(A)’s animal-density limit and violating its provision that “each additional farm animal will require a ½ acre of land.” Because Applicants state that breeding goats is a purpose of the operation, even one additional goat would further exceed the limits established by Section 202-1, which defines “Farm Animals” to include “goats … of any age.” Those proposed conditions are inconsistent with the Regulations as written. Therefore, the application does not comply with the Regulations as written and appears to require a variance. II. Applicants Do Not Possess a Valid Variance. The variance issued to the Bilezikians decades ago is inapplicable because, by the Board’s own rule (Section 202-14), “each applicant” must apply for a variance, so any variance granted to a previous owner cannot satisfy a later applicant’s request. Further, that rule requires variance requests to be reviewed “case by case.” Even apart from whether a prior variance could apply to a later owner, the prior variance involved materially different circumstances: far fewer animals; substantially more land; a different parcel configuration; non-commercial use; greater separation from shellfish waters; activities before Hallet’s Mill Pond was restored to active shellfishing; and a different, pre-2007 version of the Regulations. Those differences underscore why the earlier variance does not appear to apply to this application and why Section 202-14 requires each variance request to be evaluated on its own facts. Applicants’ assertion that the variance “runs with the land” is incorrect for several reasons: 1. That reasoning inappropriately relies on state zoning law. Unlike the Stables Regulations and state law governing municipal board of health variances, zoning law specifically 2 allows variances to “run with the land.”1 Further, a zoning variance to construct a barn is distinct from a board of health variance to use the building to house animals. 2. Septic system variances operate under a different regulatory scheme not applicable to Board of Health annual use permits (i.e., Title 5, 310 CMR 15.00, Yarmouth Septic Regulations). Even if that scheme applied, the Bilezikians’ 25-year-old variance cannot apply here. See Orcutt v. Board of Health, 22 Mass. L. Rptr. 60 (2007) (upholding Board of Health’s decision that a 23-year-old unrecorded variance issued to the prior landowner did not “run with the land” or simply transfer from one landowner or applicant to another, and requiring that “[t]he ambiguity [in the variance] must be resolved against the holder of the variance”) (Attached). 3. Even if state zoning law somehow applied here (it does not; Section 202-14 of the Stables Regulations states that the Variances provision of the State Sanitary Code applies), the requirements for a variance to avoid expiration have not been met. The Bilezikians’ variance does not appear to have been recorded in the Registry of Deeds (or elsewhere to our knowledge), and, in any event, the variance has lapsed since its rights would need to have been exercised long ago.2 As the Board’s permit records evidence, neither the Bilezikians nor the subsequent owner exercised such rights during the last 15 years. Thus, Applicants’ assertion that they already possess a variance is incorrect, and they appear to require a new variance. III. Applicants Have Not Satisfied the Standard for a New Variance. No Variance Has Been Requested. At the outset, it must be noted that nowhere in Applicants’ application or accompanying 59-page submission do Applicants actually request a variance. For this reason alone, the Application should be denied. The “Manifest Injustice” Standard for a Variance Is Rigorous, and Applicants Bear the Burden of Proof. Even if the Board chooses to look past that critical omission or Applicants ultimately do request a variance, the Application still fails. The governing standard is not whether the Board believes the proposal appears reasonable, nor whether opponents can prove future harm. Contrary to Applicants’ assertion during the Board’s July 20 hearing that the State Sanitary Code is irrelevant here, Section 202-14 of the Stables Regulations specifies that “the variance provisions of Article I of the State Sanitary Code shall apply to this regulation.” The state sets forth Article I’s 1 See M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 10, which bars a town or city from tying a zoning variance granted under Title VII (state zoning law) to a specific property owner. 2 See M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Sections 10 and 11, which together provide that “[n]o variance … shall take effect until a copy of the decision … is recorded in the registry of deeds for the county and district in which the land is located” and that a zoning variance shall lapse “[i]f the rights authorized by a variance are not exercised within [two] year[s] of the grant of such variance.” 3 variance procedures in the regulations at 105 CMR 400.800, which permits a municipal board of health to issue a variance only upon a showing of “manifest injustice” (Attached). The burden rests on Applicants to prove—not by assumptions, optimism, or the absence of definitive evidence of future contamination—that denying relief would deprive them of substantially all beneficial use of the property and that they can achieve a level of protection at least equal to what can be achieved without strictly applying the requirements to be varied. That is a demanding standard. In applying that standard, the Board’s own Stables Regulations prohibit the Board from limiting its focus to only the animals; Section 202-14 requires that each variance application “be reviewed for its intent on compliance with the regulation in protecting wetlands, abutters, and the public from nuisance.” Applicants have suggested that these issues have already been addressed by the Conservation Commission or DEP. They have not. During its hearings, the Conservation Commission expressly declined to evaluate the public-health implications of keeping livestock at this location because those issues fall within the Board of Health's jurisdiction. DEP’s Policy 91- 1 decision determined only that Applicants’ last-minute revisions scaling back their Site Plan, made after the neighbors appealed, did not increase the project’s impact on protected wetland resource areas (Attached). Neither agency made the determinations that this Board alone is charged with making as to whether the proposed operation satisfies the Board's regulations and protects public health. Applicants Have Not Carried Their Burden of Proof. On the present record, Applicants have not demonstrated how their proposed breeding and related business activities can comply with the Board’s regulations or adequately protect public health. Nothing in the record demonstrates that enforcing the Regulations would deprive Applicants of substantially all beneficial use of the property. The prior owners enjoyed this waterfront property for 15 years without operating a farm, and the Regulations do not prevent reasonable residential use of the property or other lawful uses consistent with applicable regulations. Profitability, preference, sunk investment costs, and inability to use a property for a particular commercial purpose are not sufficient to meet this requirement. Nor can Applicants prove that their proposed animals and use can achieve the same level of protection that would be achieved by strict compliance with the Regulations’ shellfishing setback and animal density requirements. On this record, the risks to the public health and safety, wetlands, abutters, and the public, as well as nuisance concerns, which Section 202-14 requires protecting. are many, including:  Risk to public health and the restored shellfish resource due to potential runoff of many tons of manure per year (excluding offspring and bedding waste), fecal coliform bacteria, nitrogen, and other pollutants into Mill Pond;  Increased risk of contaminating wetlands, drainage systems, and waterways;  Risks from increased rodents, flies, mosquitoes, and associated disease transmission and increased pesticide use; 4  Potential degradation of publicly funded restoration, jeopardizing Yarmouth’s heavy investment to reopen Mill Pond to shellfishing and public swimming, fishing, kayaking, and other uses; and  Greater flooding and severe weather-related risks, as the proposed manure and waste management plan lack site-specific analysis or enforceable measures to prevent pollution during routine operations or storm events. Rather than repeat the details of each of those, we refer you to our letter distributed by hand to the Board on July 20, 2026, several neighbors’ and residents’ submitted letters, and our and others’ statements during the Board’s two hearings on this matter. In further support of those, we attach several documents, many of which are on file with the Conservation Commission or otherwise publicly available (Attached). In sum, the record does not establish the manifest injustice required for a variance. Nor does it demonstrate that granting a variance would avoid detriment to public health, nearby waters, wetlands, abutters, or the public interest from siting the proposed goat breeding operation and related business activities in a densely settled neighborhood closely integrated with multiple waterways and heavily used for recreation, on the oldest road in Yarmouth. Applicants therefore have not carried their burden under Section 202-14 and the State Sanitary Code. The Board Should Not Shift Applicants’ Burden of Proof or Consider Hypothetical Future Uses. The Board should not shift Applicants’ burden of proof to neighboring residents by approving the application first and relying on future monitoring or enforcement if problems later arise. Existing testing is necessarily limited because the proposed operation does not yet exist. Residents should not become the test case for whether this level of commercial livestock activity can safely operate at this location. Likewise, taxpayers should not bear the costs of enforcement or remediation if the assumptions underlying the application prove incorrect. The Stable Regulations are intended to prevent those risks before they occur. Finally, concerns about what other uses might someday occur on the property are not relevant to this application. ------------ The Board’s responsibility is to apply the Stables Regulations as written to the application before it. Because Applicants have neither demonstrated compliance with those Regulations nor met the requirements for a variance, the requested permits and any related variance should be denied. Thank you for your careful consideration. Respectfully submitted, Joshua Stayn and Rachel Rosen, MD LII >State Regulations >Massachusetts Regulations >105 CMR - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH >105 CMR, 105 CMR 400.000 - State Sanitary Code Chapter I: General Administrative Procedures >105 CMR, § 400.800 - Variance 105 CMR, § 400.800 - Variance (A) Variance Permitted. The board of health may vary the application of any provision of this article with respect to any particular case when, in its opinion, the enforcement thereof would do manifest injustice; provided, that the decision of the board of health shall not conflict with the spirit of any minimum standard established by the State Sanitary Code. Any variance granted by the board of health shall be in writing. A copy of any such variance shall, while it is in effect, be available to the public at all reasonable hours in the office of the clerk of the city or town, or in the office of the board of health, and notice of the grant of variance shall be filed with the Commissioner of Public Health of the Commonwealth. (B) Expiration, Modification, Suspension. Any variance or other modification authorized to be made by this article may be subject to such qualification, revocation, suspension, or expiration as the board of health expresses in its grant. A variance or other modification authorized to be made by this article may otherwise be revoked, modified, or suspended, in whole or in part, only after the holder thereof has been notified in writing and has been given a n opportunity to be heard, in conformity with the requirements for an order and hearing of 105 CMR 400.400 and 400.500. Notes 105 CMR, § 400.800 State Regulations Compare State Regulations Toolbox Accessibility About LII Contact us Advertise here Help Terms of use Privacy Browse cases /Commonwealth…/2007 /January /ORCUTT v. …Translate Text Highlighter Bookmark PDF Share Report a problem Subsequent References CaseIQ (AI Recommendations) Smart Summary CLAYTON ORCUTT AND ANOTHER V. BOARD OF HEALTH FOR THE TOWN OF WEBSTER AND ANOTHER. GAIL ORCUTT. TOWN OF WEBSTER. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND ORCUTT v. BOARD OF HEALTH OF WEBSTER Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court, Worcester. Jan 4, 2007 Please sign up to generate summary. HON. JOHN T. LU, Justice of the Superior Court. The defendants, the Board of Health for the Town of Webster and the Town of Webster (Board) ordered the plain- tiffs, Clayton and Gail Orcutt (Orcutts), to connect to the town's public sewer system. This is a certiorari appeal pursuant to G.L. c. 249, § 4. Finding that the Board reasonably concluded that the Orcutts' property abuts a public way under which there is a common sewer and that, in the circumstances of this case, the Board may revoke a vari- ance granted to their predecessor in title, Edward Kokocinski (Kokocinski), the court affirms the Board's order. The Board moves to strike some information contained in the Orcutts' memorandum of law in support of their motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Board objects to the court's consideration of evidence that it would cost $30,000 for the Orcutts to connect to the public sewer. Even assuming these projected costs to be true, it would not change the court's view of what is feasible. The court, therefore, does not reach the issue of whether the motion to strike should be allowed. The Orcutts live at 150 North Main Street in Webster, Massachusetts. Their property does not touch or have frontage on North Main Street; however, the Orcutts have a private right of way easement on a driveway which connects their home with North Main Street, under which runs a public sewer. Instead of using the public sewer, the Orcutts use their fully functioning private septic system. On November 4, 1983, the Board granted Kokocinski a variance giving him permission to use the existing private septic system. The variance was on Board of Health stationary and read as follows: "Dear Mr. Kokocinski, After an inspection of property at 150 ½ North Main St. by Mr. Kenneth . . . hilinski, and Mr. Theodore Chmura it was de- cided that a water line was too close to the proposed sewer main. Because of the problem of hardship involved in in- stallation of water line, a variance is therefore warranted to use an approved Septic System at this property . . ." Some portions of the variance are illegible. To the extent the content of illegible parts is apparent from context, the court has added the missing information. The legible portion of the street address for Kokocinski reads, ". . . orris St., Webster . . ." ORCUTT v. BOARD OF HEALTH …No. 05-2122.(Jan 4, 2007) DISCUSSION Standard of Review Analysis A. Applicability of the Webster Bylaw to the Orcutts' Parcel Beginning in early 2005, the Board held several hearings to determine whether to require the Orcutts to connect their property to the public sewer. On October 14, 2005, the Board ordered the Orcutts to connect. The Board is- sued the order pursuant to the Town of Webster Bylaw § 155.4 (Webster Bylaw), which states that "[t]he Board of Health requires the owner or occupant of any building upon land abutting a public or private way, in which there is a common sewer, to connect the same therewith by sufficient, drain, and such owner who fails to comply with such order shall be punished by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars per month." The function of certiorari review is to correct a quasi-judicial tribunal's errors of law, where the errors of law are ap- parent on the record, adversely affect the petitioner's material rights, and the errors would not otherwise be subject to review. See G.L. c. 249, § 4;MacHenry v. Civil Service Comm'n, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 632, 634-5 (1996) (Department of Personnel Administration's interpretation of its role in bypass of promotional candidates was rea- sonable construction of statute). In seeking relief, a petitioner must demonstrate that any error of law was "so sub- stantial and material that, if allowed to stand, [it] will result in manifest injustice to the petitioner who is without any other remedy." Tracht v. County Commrs. of Worcester, 318 Mass. 681, 686 (1945). The court is confined to the record from the proceeding below. It is not the court's role to make findings of facts or weigh evidence; nor may the court exercise its discretion or substitute its judgment for that of the decision making body. See Pyramid Co. v. Architectural Barriers Bd., 403 Mass. 126, 130 (1988) (evidence supported Architectural Barriers Board's finding that elevators would provide substantial benefit to handicapped persons); Tracht, 318 Mass. at 686. The court may evaluate the evidentiary basis for the Board's order, to ensure that it was supported by substantial evidence, because a decision based on facts that are unsupported by substantial evidence is arbitrary and capricious. See Doherty v. Retirement Bd. of Medford, 425 Mass. 130, 135 (1997) (substantial evidence supported retirement board's crediting of testimony of man of "unsavory character"). Substantial evidence is such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. See id. Where the evidence could reasonably support conflicting conclusions, the tribunal's conclusion takes precedence over any other conclusion the court might have reached. See id. at 135, 141-142. The Orcutts argue that they should not be required to connect to the public sewer because the Webster Bylaw does not apply to their property and their existing private septic system poses no threat to public health. The Orcutts fur- ther contend that because Kokocinski received a variance from the Board to use a septic system, they should also have the benefit of the variance. The Board concluded that the Orcutts' property fell within the purview of the Webster Bylaw based on the Orcutts' easement over a driveway connecting their lot to North Main Street. G.L. c. 83, § 11 authorizes the Board to "re- quire an owner or occupant of any building upon land abutting on a public way, in which there is a common sewer, to connect the same therewith."ORCUTT v. BOARD OF HEALTH …No. 05-2122.(Jan 4, 2007) A key issue is whether the Board reasonably exercised its authority in classifying the Orcutts' property as land abut- ting a public way with a common sewer within the meaning of G.L. c. 83, § 11. See Duracraft Corp. v. Holmes Products Corp., 427 Mass. 156, 163 n. 11 (1998) (statutes should be interpreted "not alone according to their simple, literal or strict verbal meaning, but in accord with the spirit and intent of the legislation") (citations omitted); Hrenchuck v. Planning Bd. of Walpole, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 949, 949 (1979) (equating abutting with access). It was reasonable for the Board to conclude that the Orcutts' easement empowered the Board to require them to connect. The Orcutts' right of way affords them access to North Main Street; the driveway gives their lot access to a public way and their rights in the driveway include a utility easement. Their address is North Main Street. The Board's in- terpretation is a natural interpretation of the town bylaw and statute. While other courts have defined the term "abut" differently in various contexts, in light of the facts and circumstances of this case and the intent of the G.L. c. 83, § 11, the court finds that the Board reasonably classified the Orcutts as abutters. B. The Impact on Public Health of the Use of a Private Septic System The Board's statutory authority includes the right to pursue its environmental and health and safety objectives. See Padden v. West Boylston, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 120, 129 (2005) ("on-site wastewater disposal systems continue to present a potential source of pathogens and pollutants . . . it is expected that sewers will significantly improve water quality"). The Board's authority includes the power to take preventative measures rather than "wait until the danger materializes."Borden, Inc. v. Comm'n of Pub. Health, 388 Mass. 707, 727 n. 19 (1983) (Superior Court order invali- dating Commissioner of Public Health's regulations banning urea-formaldehyde foamed-in-place insulation (UFFI) reversed). Even without considering the proximity of the Orcutts' property to the French River, the public health benefits of connecting to the public sewer are obvious and support the conclusion that the Board's order was a rea- sonable exercise of its authority. C. The Board's Revocation of the Variance Granted to Kokocinski The Orcutts contend that they should have the benefit of the variance granted to Kokocinski. 1. Ambiguity as to Whether the Variance Survived Transfer of the Parcel The terms of a variance issued by an administrative agency are derived from an interpretation of the variance and the recorded variance decision. Mendoza v. Licensing Bd. of Fall River, 444 Mass. 188, 205 (2005) (recorded vari- ance had extensive list of permitted uses). If the variance on its face sets forth limitations on a particular use, those limitations are to be strictly construed. Id. at 208. If the variance is ambiguous, then the ambiguity is to be resolved against the holder.Id. at 206 citing DiGiovanni v. Bd. of Appeals of Rockport, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 339, 347 (1985) (District Court reversed board's order which was based on interpretation of variance that resulted in a finding that buildings were constructed in wrong location. Appeals Court reversed District Court.). An objective observer might consider the variance to be unambiguous-in that it only benefitted Kokocinski. At best for the Orcutts, the variance was ambiguous as to whether it benefitted them. The variance was addressed toORCUTT v. BOARD OF HEALTH …No. 05-2122.(Jan 4, 2007) ORDER Kokocinski and highlighted the potential financial hardship to him. While it is unclear what factors led the Board to conclude that connection to the public sewer would cause a hardship to Kokocinski, the Orcutts have not articu- lated why the water line caused them a hardship. The Board could reasonably conclude that a twenty three year old unrecorded variance was not intended to run with the land. The ambiguity must be resolved against the holder of the variance.Licensing Bd. of Fall River, 444 Mass. at 206 citingDigiovanni, 19 Mass. App. Ct. at 347. 2. Change in Circumstances An agency may reconsider its decisions, particularly where there have been material changes in facts and circum- stances. See Stowe v.Bolgna, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 612, 616 (1992), affirmed by 415 Mass. 20 (1993). Circumstances have changed which warrant the Board's reconsideration of its grant of a variance. The Orcutts' septic system is now twenty three years older and probably provides even less environmental protection in comparison to the public sewer. "[E]ven an on-site septic system that passes Title 5 inspection can contribute pollution to the groundwater due to a hidden failure when the soil below the system stops providing appropriate treatment for septage."Padden v. West Boylston, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 120, 127-128 (2005) (Superior Court order enjoining enforcement of mandatory public sewer connection bylaw reversed). The plaintiffs Clayton and Gail Orcutt's motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED . Judgment shall enter for the defendants Board of Health for the Town of Webster and the Town of Webster. Comments Write your comment CONTACT MassDEP Wetlands Program Online Email DEP.Wetlands@mass.gov OFFERED BY Wetlands Program Policy 91-1: Plan Changes Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection This policy discusses how MassDEP handles significant changes to a project after a Notice of Intent has been filed. Administrative Appeals Policy for the Review of Project Plan Changes Issued: February 8, 1991 Revised: March 1, 1995 Purpose: The primary purpose of this policy is to promote the intent of the Wetlands Protection Act, M.G.L. c. 131 s.40, to ensure thorough local review of work proposed in or near wetland resource areas by identifying those circumstances in which the Department will consider changes to plans filed under Notices of Intent (NOI) which are before the Department under appeal for a Superseding Order of Conditions (SOC) or for which a Claim for an Adjudicatory Hearing has been filed. It is also the purpose of this policy to encourage submission, at the earliest possible time during Conservation Commission review, of project designs that meet the performance standards and minimize impacts to resource areas. This policy specifically distinguishes those plan changes which are substantial, and will require a new NOI filing, from those plan changes which are deemed insubstantial and thus may be considered as part of the appeal review process. This Issuance and Purpose Issuance and Purpose Regulatory Standards Analysis Contact policy only applies to plan change reviews contemplated prior to the issuance of a Final Order of Conditions. Minimum submittal requirements for filing an NOI are contained at 310 CMR 10.05(4)(a) and (b) and include submission of "plans, supporting calculations, and other documentation sufficient to completely describe the proposed work and mitigating measures". The Department may accept project revisions at any time while an NOI is under appeal. This discretion is limited only by 310 CMR 10.05(7)(h) which precludes the Department from considering new information when the Conservation Commission has denied the project for lack of such information and the Department concurs that the information is necessary. From time to time, parties to projects under appeal will request the Department to consider new information or will seek to amend project plans. For the purpose of this policy, plan changes include changes in "project configuration" (e.g. roadway alignment, drainage structures, building footprints) and changes which result from the introduction of new information which changes the amount or type of resource area impact (e.g. identification of a stream or other resource areas that had previously been missed) despite the absence of a change in project configuration. The Department will not consider plan changes, as defined above, which are deemed to be substantially different from the plan acted upon by the Conservation Commission and which are referenced in the Order of Conditions. Substantial plan changes are deemed to be those changes which significantly modify the project configuration and which result in increased impacts to wetland resource areas. There are three exceptions to this policy. The Department may accept plan changes that are substantial if 1) the Conservation Commission has failed to act on the Notice of Intent; 2) the Conservation Commission has approved a project plan which does not meet the performance standards of the regulations; or 3) after consultation, the Conservation Commission does not object to the Department considering a substantial plan change. Regulatory Standards Analysis State Organizations (/massachusetts-state-organizations) © 2026 Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Mass.gov® is a registered service mark of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Department may consider plans which contain insubstantial changes from the plans acted upon by the Conservation Commission and referenced in the Order of Conditions. Insubstantial plan changes are limited to those changes which involve unchanged or decreased impacts but which do not constitute significant changes from the project configuration acted upon by the Conservation Commission (e.g. retaining walls, bridges, and spans for a wetlands crossing; repositioning of structures within the buffer zone to increase the distance from a wetland resource area; improvements to flow control or sediment control devices; and changes in the location of a deck on a house resulting in a change in the building footprint). In presenting proposed plan changes to the Department, the burden is on the project proponent to demonstrate that the plan change is insubstantial. Specifically, the project proponent must show that the plan change results in an unchanged, or not significantly changed, project configuration and unchanged or decreased impact to any wetland resource areas as compared to the plan acted upon by the Conservation Commission and referenced in the Order of Conditions. DATE PUBLISHED:February 8, 1991 LAST UPDATED:March 1, 1995 Contact MassDEP Wetlands Program Online Email DEP.Wetlands@mass.gov Soul Washaya & Dorine D. Washaya 18k Accesses Explore all metrics Abstract Livestock production has undergone an industrial revolution over the past few decades. This has resulted in the enormous generation of livestock manure, particularly in agro-pastoral systems. Agricultural productivity in these systems largely depends on livestock manure. However, some of these communities are struggling with goat manure disposal. In addition, livestock manure requires proper treatment before application to agricultural land, because it contains toxic heavy metals and pathogenic microorganisms. The review aimed to demonstrate that poor manure management has environmental consequences; thus, interventions that will promote local community livelihood benefits from animal wastes are germane. In many other communities in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), horticulture or crop production is minimal, due to erratic rainfall hence, most of the manure lies idle in abandoned kraal pens or is heaped outside the pens with no designed plan. Manure should be viewed as a resource, rather than a waste product. The environmental consequences associated with such manure management are not known and should be probed further. Deliberate efforts to explore the land and environmental risks associated with the non-use of livestock manure are germane to promoting environmental stewardship. The use of manure as feedstock for anaerobic digesters offers the greatest potential for sustainable management in SSA. Explore related subjects Discover the latest articles, books and news in related subjects, suggested using machine learning. Animal Agriculture Crop waste Environmental Impact Environmental Management Organic Farming Subsistence Agriculture Log in Benefits, concerns and prospects of using goat manure in sub-Saharan Africa Review Open access Published: 14 November 2023 Volume 13, article number 28 (2023)Cite this article You have full access to this open access article Pastoralism Introduction Small ruminant production is predicted as the most viable economic activity for drought-prone areas in sub-Saharan Africa (Devendra 2015; Marandure et al. 2020; Phetogo et al. 2020; Washaya et al. 2019; Thornton 2010). In such environments, the demand for livestock products has been on the rise (Tadesse 2018; Scholtz et al. 2011), due to the growing human population, changes in income and food preferences. As reported by Homann et al. (2007), the role of livestock, particularly goats, has rapidly changed in rural communities. They are increasingly used to augment household cash income and promote food security in drought-prone areas (Homann et al. 2007). These characteristics are important because goats require low maintenance requirements (Nizar et al. 2014), are relatively inexpensive to rear, require less dry matter intake and space, can utilize ragged land that is inappropriate for crop production and are prolific (Msalya et al. 2017). In agreement, Dube et al. (2017) hypothesized that the goat population in Zimbabwe is increasing particularly in Matabeleland South. Unfortunately, the high number of goats per household contributes to volumes of unused manure. In general, rural communities do not use goat manure for anything; it is not preferred compared to cattle, pig or poultry manures (Wuta and Nyamugata 2012) in horticulture projects; and hence, there is a rampant accumulation. Under intensive production systems, large amounts of livestock manures are stored in piles or lagoons, managed to decrease nutrient and pathogen concentrations and processed into organic fertilizer (Kumar et al. 2013). This practice is not feasible in some parts of Zimbabwe including Beitbridge, because very few crops or horticulture production is possible, due to arid climatic conditions. Therefore, heaps of decomposing manure are common, posing an environmental threat to inhabitants. The problem of accumulating small ruminant manure has also been reported in Kenya (Antony et al. 2013; Jagisso et al. 2019) and Australia (Arnaudin 2012), and burning or use of beetles has been the most valuable urgent option for these nations. We, however, do not recommend any of these methods because manure can be used for many other things like the production of biogas, liquid fertilizer or even selling to generate household income. Under pastoral systems, manure can simply be spread over the rangeland, thus improving both soil and biomass characteristics. This may not be feasible in most communities within SSA, because animals are housed at night; therefore, manure accumulation happens within kraals. Nonetheless, other means of disposing of manure have been identified in this review, which will benefit these resource-challenged farmers. The environmental impacts of improper disposal of manure have not been researched in most SSA counties, although its contribution to environmental pollution is evident. To this end, little is known about the productivity, composition, decomposition, biogas potential and environmental impacts of goat manure. Therefore, the review aimed to highlight the potential environmental consequences of improper disposal of goat manure in SSA and promote possible solutions to avert the scourge. Approach A pilot survey revealed decomposing heaps of goat manure in the Beitbridge area. Therefore, recently published evidence was reviewed, focusing on manure management to promote interventions that can be actuated to mitigate environmental pollution across agro-pastoral systems in SSA. Published work, in English, focusing on current trends, that: (a) addresses the availability, benefits and quality of goat manure (b) nutrient content and use of goat manure as a fertilizer (c) decomposition of manure and biogas production (d) environmental impacts, (e) policy regulation of manure and (f) are relevant to livelihoods and income generation in sub-Saharan Africa was analysed. Relevant publications were identified through keyword searches with Google, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Springer Link, ScienceDirect and ResearchGate, and more than 150 publications were reviewed. Priority was given to publications that suit at least two of the search factors. Availability and quality of goat manure While in other countries manure is available, some countries show very low quantities of manure for either agricultural or energy uses; for example, in Ghana, livestock manure is only available in the small-scale sector and its utilization for large-scale biogas systems can be challenging (Ulrike et al. 2014). A similar report was given by Antony et al. (2013) in Kenya, where manure is abundant in drier areas with no cropping activity. A possible solution to excess manure accumulation in, for example, the Beitbridge area in Zimbabwe would be to exchange manure for crop residuals to feed livestock, this was done in Northwest Nigeria and the results were phenomenal (Antony et al. 2013). Table 1 shows manure production from various farm animals. Table 1 Manure production (% live weight per day) from different livestock in sub-Saharan Africa The manure extraction from a goat which has a body weight of 20–40 kg is approximately 0.32–0.625 kg per day, equivalent to about 0.3 tons per year (Erdogdu et al. 2019). In a study by Ansah et al. (2019) and Hanafiah et al. (2017), goat manure weighed 178.67–216.17 g/day and 0.7 kg/day respectively. On average, farmers who own > 45 goats per household can produce approximately 21.3 kg manure per day and 7760.8 kg manure per year. Such volumes of manure would require a codified manure management system, without which environmental pollution ensues. In spite of the challenges so far identified, goat manure possesses a higher N concentration compared to cattle manure (Zhu et al. 2020a), because small ruminants actively select plants of higher nutritional value to constitute their daily food. Animal excreta has high concentrations of easily decomposable C and N compounds compared to plant litter; therefore, it provides readily accessible nutrients to soil microorganisms leading to accelerated decomposition rates (Zhu et al. 2020a). Thus, biomass decomposition becomes energetically favourable with animal than plant-based waste. Nutrient content of goat manure Goat manure has a higher content of N and phosphoric acid than that of cows, and the urine is rich in N and potassium (K) (Ansah et al. 2019). Previous research (Saha et al. 2008) has shown that goat manure contains low C: N ratio below the critical level of 20 (Ansah et al. 2019; Wuta and Nyamugata 2012; Prieto et al. 2019; Zechmeister-Boltenstern et al. 2015; Zhu et al. 2020a) and is important in nitrogen mineralization and stabilization of farming systems. Besides the provision of organic matter, goat manure has the potential to provide adequate N, P and K nutrients required by most crops (Wuta and Nyamugata 2012; Msalya et al. 2017; Orgiazzi and Briones 2021). Sub-Saharan soils are predominantly phosphate (P) deficient; the use of organic manure as soil amendments for P-deficient soils is a welcome recommendation. The nutritional composition of animal manures is presented in Table 2. Given the information (Table 2), the preferred use of cattle manure by farmers in cropping lands is unjustified, and we believe farmers need to be educated on this fact. The only justification would be quantity-related, as goats naturally would produce approximately 300 g manure/day compared to 25 kg/day from cattle (Msalya et al. 2017). The storage of manure beyond 6 months systematically reduces its nutritive potential for crop production; Lim et al. (2023) reported that the N level significantly drops due to ammonia volatilization leading to nutrient imbalance, particularly the N to P ratio. To this end, we recommend that farmers compost goat manure with other crop residues to increase its value (Lim et al. 2023). However, this process might increase the carbon footprint of manure as more carbon is emitted as CO rather than CH under anaerobic conditions. At the present moment, both endpoints can be explored to improve soil characteristics as well as abet and avert environmental pollution. 2 4 Agricultural Nutrient Management Program Department of Environmental Science and Technology 0116 Symons Hall 7998 Regents Dr. College Park, MD 20742 TEL 301-405-1319 | FAX 301-314-7375 www.extension.umd.edu/anmp The University of Maryland Extension programs are open to all and will not discriminate against anyone because of race, age, sex, color, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, religion, ancestry, or natural origin, marital status, genetic information, political affiliation, or gender identity and expression. Manure Production Rates (8-18) Manure Type Description lbs. manure/ AU/day Cu. ft. manure/ AU/day Dairy lactating cow4 12,500 lbs milk/yr 81 1.3 15,000 lbs milk/yr 88 1.4 17,500 lbs milk/yr 94 1.5 20,000 lbs milk/yr 100 1.6 22,500 lbs milk/yr 106 1.7 25,000 lbs milk/yr 113 1.8 27,500 lbs milk/yr 119 1.9 dry cow 82 1.3 heifer 85 1.3 bull2 70 1.1 veal 60 0.96 Beef feeder yearling (750 - 1100 lbs.) - high forage diet 59 0.95 feeder yearling (750 - 1100 lbs.) - high energy diet 51 0.82 calf (450 - 750 lbs.) 58 0.93 cow 63 1.00 bull 63 1.00 Swine grower (up to 250 lbs.) 63 1.00 replacement gilt 33 0.53 sow - gestation 27 0.44 sow - lactation 60 0.96 boar 21 0.33 nursing / nursery pig (0 - 65 lbs.) 65 1.03 Poultry (Free Range)6 broiler7 57 layers 61 turkeys 44 ducks3 & geese1 55 Small Ruminants sheep and goats 40 0.63 Equus spp. horses, mules 2, donkeys 2, zebras 2 50 0.80 Exotic Mammals llamas, alpacas, camels, yaks2 40 bison, water buffalo 2 60 rabbit 5 150 kangaroos1 40 monkeys1 33 Exotic Birds1 emu (breeding stock) 50 emu (young, growing birds) 40 ostrich 25 quail 80 guinea fowl, pheasants & peacocks 44 Estimates are from the USDA/NRCS, Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook unless otherwise indicated 1Dr. Rosalina Angel and 2Dr. Richard Kohn (UMCP Animal and Avian Science); 3Manure Characteristics, MWPS-18; 4USDA-NRCS Animal Waste Management Software Program; 5William Lantz, Garrett Community College; 6not appropriate for integrated poultry production7 Updated ASABE Standard Manure Excretion Standard (2006)