Ear to the ground

alps

alps wrote: »

They maintain that they can determine in the test of the algae whether the nutrients come from human or agricultural waste.

They maintain the majority of the problem in Courtmacsherry is agricultural..

Hard to mount a viable defence without sience showing otherwise..

You're not telling me anything new here I generally believe in science, however it seems a problem in that field that they cannot see they may be wrong at time or use methods that may be wrong. Of course, they may also be right.

If I were to question anything out of it it would be at least two scenes of **** being hosed off concrete. Creates an impression.

_Brian

alps wrote: »

They maintain that they can determine in the test of the algae whether the nutrients come from human or agricultural waste.

They maintain the majority of the problem in Courtmacsherry is agricultural..

Hard to mount a viable defence without sience showing otherwise..

This is the crux of the situation.
If they have a reliable method to determine this are people going to say they only accept the science that fits their narrative. We can’t just run an echo chamber where someone says look at the sewage problem, everyone nods and ignore the science that says otherwise.

Same for ETTG, it can’t just run articles blowing smoke up the holes of farmers because we all know there are problems in farming that need addressing.

Mooooo

The lad she was talking to about that said they can sometimes, not all the time. Ella moved on fast enough when that was said imo. Kingston spoke well. The piece was ok and as said better to be part of the conversation than the whole thing splitting with sides pointing fingers from all angles and nothing happening or the hammer falling too hard on one side

Say my name

_Brian wrote: »

This is the crux of the situation.
If they have a reliable method to determine this are people going to say they only accept the science that fits their narrative. We can’t just run an echo chamber where someone says look at the sewage problem, everyone nods and ignore the science that says otherwise.

What's the bets it's coliforms that's being recorded and it's being put on livestock.
Science and the epa are not good bedfellows.
Weren't they shown up by lying about methane accounting emissions there recently.

The situation in Duncannon has been going on for forty years and the answer is always they don't know what the problem is. They know it's faecal but they can't solve it.
So now they have EU money to investigate the problem. Hence a research group set up and there's tweets about fences going up.

I suspect it's similar in Cork. The thing that connects both is a large holidaying community. But humans don't sh1t.

The only place where sewage is being discussed is here.
It's farmland is to blame on epa and council news.
It's the easy target. Try going into a caravan park with buried pipes and accusing the tourists and see what happens?

80sDiesel

Enjoyed the episode. Happened to watch it with my mum who doesn’t quite understand why I bought some upland meadows to restore. Explaining the intensification of farming she began to understand why I don’t have any animals and don’t add fert as I want to reduce the fertility of the land to enable the reintroduction of wildflowers and native grasses to recreate the species rich upland hay meadows of the past.

Say my name

80sDiesel wrote: »

Enjoyed the episode. Happened to watch it with my mum who doesn’t quite understand why I bought some upland meadows to restore. Explaining the intensification of farming she began to understand why I don’t have any animals and don’t add fert as I want to reduce the fertility of the land to enable the reintroduction of wildflowers and native grasses to recreate the species rich upland hay meadows of the past.

How's that going?

foxy farmer

For years you had 3 villages discharging raw sewage into the Courtmacsherry estuary. The council got away with it. The population in all 3 villages grew massively in the last 20 yrs. The EPA brought out a report a few yrs back where towns and villages were named for pollution. In the last few yrs 2 treatment plants have been built handling the 3 villages. The company that was prosecuted also put up a massive new treatment plant. So the authorities figure that 2 sources have been rectified. That leaves only one.
Europe is going after water quality. Derogation limits will go if things don't improve. They'll probably go in any case. Might be no bad thing either. Nitrate limits slurry deadlines and closed season mean fook all to some lads. Theyll spend 40k on tankers and attachments when they should really be spending it on storage.
I'll say no more. And yes there are issues on my own farm that could do with improvement.

Say my name

For farmers in derogation, the dept measure their slurry tanks to see if they have adequate storage.

alps

Say my name wrote: »

For farmers in derogation, the dept measure their slurry tanks to see if they have adequate storage.

They don't...

Farmers make a declaration when applying for a derogation that they have tanks of specific sizes and capacity..

There is no defence for those who have given false declarations...

Slurry storage was part and parcel of proper milk expansion, and more than derogation farmers are to blame here....only the derogation lads have signed the document.

Mooooo

Nitrates inspections measure all tanks and areas where they consider anything should be collected from. Tis the eye in the sky could be doing the measuring soon anyway.
Also, well for me anyway, I assume there are more, some are at a stage were investment is gonna be required to upgrade farmyards and in doing so most would attempt to future proof but by aiming to build what they may perceive to be the stocking rate they can manage but if dero goes you could end up paying for extra cubicles/ tanks, etc with less cows to use them or indeed pay for them. Edit forgot my point! Basically it is frustrating trying to plan for the next 20 /30 years when in my cases investment will be required soon. Also In a sense or "low cost" advantage is already hemmed in by having the same capital costs as our European neighbours even tho cows may be only in them for 4 months here as opposed to 10 or 12 months on the continent

wrangler

Mooooo wrote: »

Nitrates inspections measure all tanks and areas where they consider anything should be collected from. Tis the eye in the sky could be doing the measuring soon anyway.
Also, well for me anyway, I assume there are more, some are at a stage were investment is gonna be required to upgrade farmyards and in doing so most would attempt to future proof but by aiming to build what they may perceive to be the stocking rate they can manage but if dero goes you could end up paying for extra cubicles/ tanks, etc with less cows to use them or indeed pay for them. Edit forgot my point! Basically it is frustrating trying to plan for the next 20 /30 years when in my cases investment will be required soon. Also In a sense or "low cost" advantage is already hemmed in by having the same capital costs as our European neighbours even tho cows may be only in them for 4 months here as opposed to 10 or 12 months on the continent

It was always flagged that dero could be dropped, don't think it was ever wise to plan for it being there forever
I saw a farmer out in all the rain yesterday with an umbilical, there's wrong ones everywhere not just in industry/town sewerage

alps

wrangler wrote: »

It was always flagged that dero could be dropped, don't think it was ever wise to plan for it being there forever
I saw a farmer out in all the rain yesterday with an umbilical, there's wrong ones everywhere not just in industry/town sewerage

Derogation works..

There is absolutely no correlation between water quality issues and derogation farms..

The issue is farmers doing the b####x like you describe above and farmers not having adequate slurry storage..

It's a real and significant issue for derogation farms that it is perceived that removing the derogation can in some way fix the issue of the guys who have utter disregard for the environment and their fellow farmers.

I'm coming to the view that either expanding dairy farms, or those above a certain number, should have to apply for certification which would include an engineers report of storage facilities and capacities.

This would be standard practice across most of Europe where in fact you would have to get permission from the local council to increase numbers..

The current carry on is going to destroy many dairy farms if the derogation gets pulled as a result.

The majority of farms supplying Carbery for instance are in derogation. There physically will not be enough land to cater for all if it gets withdrawn. The consequences across all farming operations will be felt, if these derogation lads are suddenly in the market for rented ground.

Mooooo

wrangler wrote: »

It was always flagged that dero could be dropped, don't think it was ever wise to plan for it being there forever
I saw a farmer out in all the rain yesterday with an umbilical, there's wrong ones everywhere not just in industry/town sewerage

My point was in order for me to make an income and business viable going forward I have to invest, and if the rug is pulled from under me will Europe pay the bank, by fcuk they will. And its partly that situation that has lads holding out in facilities not up to scratch as they fear for the future. Im not just talking of for expansion,There are a lot of buildings in the country built years ago that will have to be replaced and and for people whose sole income is from the farm doing that will be based on achieving certain sales etc. Environmental payments aren't going to cover the loss in income

_Brian

alps wrote: »

Derogation works..

There is absolutely no correlation between water quality issues and derogation farms..

The issue is farmers doing the b####x like you describe above and farmers not having adequate slurry storage..

It's a real and significant issue for derogation farms that it is perceived that removing the derogation can in some way fix the issue of the guys who have utter disregard for the environment and their fellow farmers.

I'm coming to the view that either expanding dairy farms, or those above a certain number, should have to apply for certification which would include an engineers report of storage facilities and capacities.

This would be standard practice across most of Europe where in fact you would have to get permission from the local council to increase numbers..

The current carry on is going to destroy many dairy farms if the derogation gets pulled as a result.

The majority of farms supplying Carbery for instance are in derogation. There physically will not be enough land to cater for all if it gets withdrawn. The consequences across all farming operations will be felt, if these derogation lads are suddenly in the market for rented ground.

Would aN AD plant not be a good solution in any area like this ??

foxy farmer

_Brian wrote: »

Would aN AD plant not be a good solution in any area like this ??

There's an AD plant very close to the Courtmacsherry estuary but that has a continuous supply of pig slurry. Some messing trying to get rid of the digestate. We can get the pig slurry free to take away but they want us to pay for the digestate. At one stage last year they were begging lads to take it as they were full to the gills. A lot of farms here are in derogation anyway so not easy to get rid of locally.

_Brian

foxy farmer wrote: »

There's an AD plant very close to the Courtmacsherry estuary but that has a continuous supply of pig slurry. Some messing trying to get rid of the digestate. We can get the pig slurry free to take away but they want us to pay for the digestate. At one stage last year they were begging lads to take it as they were full to the gills. A lot of farms here are in derogation anyway so not easy to get rid of locally.

Ahh
The old Irish thing of wanting their cake and eating it too.
You’d think they would be glad to get rid of it consistently

Keepgrowing

alps wrote: »

They don't...

Farmers make a declaration when applying for a derogation that they have tanks of specific sizes and capacity..

There is no defence for those who have given false declarations...

Slurry storage was part and parcel of proper milk expansion, and more than derogation farmers are to blame here....only the derogation lads have signed the document.

They do. We had a derogation inspection this year every tank, shed and open yard measured

Edit: nitrate inspection

White Clover

I had a full cross compliance inspection the other day. They measured everything, tanks, lying areas/space per animal etc. You'd think they would know the lie of the land by now.
Not in derogation here.

alps

Keepgrowing wrote: »

They do. We had a derogation inspection this year every tank, shed and open yard measured

Edit: nitrate inspection

Tanks are only measured during an inspection..

They are not measured by the department so as to apply for a derogation. A farmer makes a declaration as tonthe size of the tanks..


The answer to adequate storage should become apparent by this weekend as we head into a few dry days.

Birdnuts

foxy farmer wrote: »

There's an AD plant very close to the Courtmacsherry estuary but that has a continuous supply of pig slurry. Some messing trying to get rid of the digestate. We can get the pig slurry free to take away but they want us to pay for the digestate. At one stage last year they were begging lads to take it as they were full to the gills. A lot of farms here are in derogation anyway so not easy to get rid of locally.

I wonder what the likes of BNM are doing with all the stuff they are getting from Brown Bins around the country - surely using that and slurry instead of silage makes much more environmental sense than using producing silage for it??

whelan2

My dad was talking about Darraghs editorial or whatever in the farming independent the other day. I didnt read it but he was wondering does anyone proof read his articles before printing. It was a bit soon after the tragedy in cork to be commenting on it. Also my dad said paper never refused ink in relation to the rest of the article. It's a sad day if this is what agri journalism has become

_Brian

whelan2 wrote: »

My dad was talking about Darraghs editorial or whatever in the farming independent the other day. I didnt read it but he was wondering does anyone proof read his articles before printing. It was a bit soon after the tragedy in cork to be commenting on it. Also my dad said paper never refused ink in relation to the rest of the article. It's a sad day if this is what agri journalism has become

There’s an awful lot of essentially gossiping by Agri media outlets about this poor family., it’s very bad taste.

Didn’t see ETTG, must be on playback or something.

Sacrolyte

whelan2 wrote: »

My dad was talking about Darraghs editorial or whatever in the farming independent the other day. I didnt read it but he was wondering does anyone proof read his articles before printing. It was a bit soon after the tragedy in cork to be commenting on it. Also my dad said paper never refused ink in relation to the rest of the article. It's a sad day if this is what agri journalism has become

I read it. I thought exactly the same. It was a bit raw to be commenting on.

Tileman

whelan2 wrote: »

My dad was talking about Darraghs editorial or whatever in the farming independent the other day. I didnt read it but he was wondering does anyone proof read his articles before printing. It was a bit soon after the tragedy in cork to be commenting on it. Also my dad said paper never refused ink in relation to the rest of the article. It's a sad day if this is what agri journalism has become

I’d disagree. I don’t particularly like him as a journalist but though the article was quite good. It’s was relevant as the draw of the land can bring out the worst in people. His family had to sell land and allot of people might carry a grudge but he was saying he has come to terms with it. Particularly relevant with what happened in cork recently. People should reflect on it.

Water John

whelan2 wrote: »

My dad was talking about Darraghs editorial or whatever in the farming independent the other day. I didnt read it but he was wondering does anyone proof read his articles before printing. It was a bit soon after the tragedy in cork to be commenting on it. Also my dad said paper never refused ink in relation to the rest of the article. It's a sad day if this is what agri journalism has become

I presume it had to pass Margaret Donnelly, Editor. I didn't see the article being mentioned, but anything like that must be sensitive. Personally I'd be reluctant.

Dakota Dan

whelan2 wrote: »

My dad was talking about Darraghs editorial or whatever in the farming independent the other day. I didnt read it but he was wondering does anyone proof read his articles before printing. It was a bit soon after the tragedy in cork to be commenting on it. Also my dad said paper never refused ink in relation to the rest of the article. It's a sad day if this is what agri journalism has become

I saw that, disgraceful, they are hardly cold in their graves and he comes up with this story referring to the family, no bit of cop on whatsoever.

Dakota Dan

Tileman wrote: »

I’d disagree. I don’t particularly like him as a journalist but though the article was quite good. It’s was relevant as the draw of the land can bring out the worst in people. His family had to sell land and allot of people might carry a grudge but he was saying he has come to terms with it. Particularly relevant with what happened in cork recently. People should reflect on it.

You have a point but no need to do it so soon after never mind giving reference to that family. There's a time and place for everything.

Water John

Both Darragh and Ella are convenors on the Farm Biodiversity Conference this week. Darragh was quite impressed with it last year.

Say my name

Water John wrote: »

Both Darragh and Ella are convenors on the Farm Biodiversity Conference this week. Darragh was quite impressed with it last year.

John Gibbins is another one on the last day.
Going by his temperment on Social Media, I don't know if the organisers are willing to sign off on a sour note or are hoping for a re education of dour John like Darragh last year.
A truly despicable man.

Say my name

Say my name wrote: »

John Gibbins is another one on the last day.
Going by his temperment on Social Media, I don't know if the organisers are willing to sign off on a sour note or are hoping for a re education of dour John like Darragh last year.
A truly despicable man.

A lot more scope to educate Darragh I'd say, I was there last year and saw the cogs turning.

I was disappointed to see Gibbons listed tbh.