I invite you to read the Herald guest editorial by Wes Kentch, president of the Whatcom County Cattlemen's Association.  Please find link below.  There are some sketchy assertions I have tried to address point by point:

1) Lack of infrastructure.  Yes, agreed, but earlier planning has wisely prohibited slaughter facilities on agricultural land and created ample Rural Industrial and Manufacturing areas.  Solving the infrastructure problem does not require rezoning land.  It requires investment.  We should be keeping that money local and those who will benefit should pool their resources to fund one adequate facility.  They are wasting their own time with the rezone request because singly, none of them can afford to build such a facility.

2) Berry processing vs slaughter.  Berry processing can't threaten animal slaughter, but flies and vermin from slaughter can threaten berry crops.  Salmon cannot threaten slaughter, but blood and offal leachate can threaten salmon.  The origin of land use planning stemmed from the need to segregate slaughter from other uses.  Let's not reinvent history.

3) It's not controversial to buy local.  It is controversial to permit the most notoriously noisome industrial uses on agricultural lands.

4) Agriculture 101.  Yes, berries and animals can be produced in close proximity.  But, production is not processing.  Grow your animals in agricultural areas but process them on industrial land.

5) The only extent to which it makes sense to process animals on farms is at the Mobile Slaughter Unit scale.  Even these have their problems.  Larger stationary facilities threaten property values and can contaminate other crops via pests and vermin.  The cost of transporting animals to a properly sited facility in an industrial area is not the same as sending them to Kansas and back.  Unless farmers are proposing a packing house on every farm, animals are going to get trucked.  Truck them to an industrial facility.

6) An 88 thousand acre rezone is not a small change.  Proponents try to pull wool over our eyes with their vision of an EPA defined small scale packing house.  The author describes it as a limited number of animals, but the actual definition is up to 50 million live pounds per year.  At an average 1,150 lbs per beef, that's 43,478 animals.  How many facilities do we really need to supply local markets?  How many can we afford when, at 62.2% yield, each facility would produce almost 19 million pounds of waste in blood, bone and offal every year?  Do you think local farmers are going to do it?  These start at about $2 million.  The Meat Cooperative is having trouble getting farmers to sign up for $500.

USDA 2009 statistics estimate per capita daily beef consumption at .16 lb.  If all 204,000 Whatcom County residents ate their average daily beef, we would need 32,640 lbs per day.  One of these so-called small scale packing houses could produce 119,405 lbs of beef per day.  Where do farmers plan to sell this local meat?  Not locally!  USDA 2009 statistics estimate total per capita daily meat  consumption at .48 lb.  That's still only 97,920 lbs per day, assuming everyone is gorging on meat daily and there are no vegetarians or vegans, or Catholics, and no one is fasting or on vacation, etc. What is the real aim of those advocating an unlimited number of these things?

7) Studies have shown Whatcom County should retain at least 100,000 acres of farmland to assure self-sufficiency.  We have only 88,000 left.  Building factories on agricultural land will not help farmers keep farming.  It may help feed meat to the population, but they will need vegetables, too.  Is it okay to ship them from thousands of miles away?

8) Buying local will help farmers, and the North Cascades Meat Cooperative is the most viable model because it includes standards for raising and treatment, premium local branding, and community cooperation to achieve our local aims.  Opening agricultural lands to industry does not guarantee local results.

9) Everyone agrees that we could benefit from local facilities.  Many communities are addressing this problem.  None that I know of are trying to up-zone all agricultural lands.  In contrast, they are pulling together, assessing needs, designing the best facility in the most appropriate place, and partnering in finance to help assure success.

10) Cities may well issue permits.  After all, isn't that where the market is and where farmers want to sell their product? It is just a question of scale.  Certainly they will not want to permit an unlimited number of 50 million pound so-called small scale packing houses.  Anyway, who's going to build them at $2 million a pop?  Not local farmers.  Do we want a big corporation taking over the business again?  That's what happens - every time.

11) Keep your eyes on North Cascades Meat Cooperative.  They are taking the right approach.  They will begin by leasing a mobile facility.  If successful, they may be able to work with the community to help site an appropriately scaled packing house.  That's the way we can all benefit without taking unknown and undue risks.