Did you read the report?? Hghlights issues with waste water plants in some urban areas and factors like runoff. Whataboutery might make some people feel better about things but if you look at the history of pollution in Lakes like Carra in Mayo or Sheelin in Cavan in low pop density rural areas that were pretty much pristine up till the 70's and are now a shadow of their former selves, it tells its own story
And the worst 4 are high population centres.i wonder can we draw any conclusions
Always good day out .going Friday
Really looking forward to the dairy show this year. Missed 2 with COVID.
Shir we're the best at everything shir, being bad and being good
Intensive agriculture is the cause....except the county with the most cows has the best rivers...!!!
That makes no sense, 130% of what? The only way would be to take each river/ stream on its own. Also the strength of impact should be taken into account surely? 1 sewage treatment plant " impacts " a river the same as agriculture " impacts " the same ?
Having said all that we as farmers have to accept intensification is having some impact. As example the amount of drainage is allowing water off land much quicker nowadays. Years ago it would take a week for the river near me to rise after rain but now its up the next day and brown with sediment
Foundation level maths.
Must do better. You're trolling since the start of this.
If you have 10 rivers.
Say........
Agriculture impacts 6 of them. 60%.
Urban impacts 4 of them. 40%
Forestry impacts 3 of them. 30%
And so on.....
What do you know, 130%.......
Had to change all 3 legged cubicles to bolt I'm, have em on next few days at nite
In at night here since Wednesday
Another 10 days or so and I’ll be in at night …staid buffering cows after drought with 2.5 kg dm of arable silage …really nice quality grass in front of cows but not much feeding in it evenings like this evening
Hard cold day on cattle today. I'll start buffering at milking time the next few days I think. I held out too long last year and the grass was gone to water. Got alot of soft hooves out of it I think.
There’s definitely an anti livestock sentiment within the EPA
the head honcho came out earlier in the year saying there needs to be a big reduction in livestock numbers, shouldn’t they impartial on that sort of stuff?
I like and share your scepticism re the EPA. From listening to stuff on radio I suspect they're manipulating data using percentages to reduce clarity.. Even using 5 year data is dodgy; they should use data from the latest year - in this case 2021. If they did that for 2022 (next year) there should be a big pull back for nitrogen. Which wouldn't please them one bit I'd say.
You can manipulate figures to tell whatever tale you like. That's a well known fact.
I have him muted on twitter so I had to search for it. So I went to his replies. He doesn't explain it.
The only explanation he gives is the explanation you're repeating that a river can be impacted by more than 1 activity.
But sure we know that. Every person on the planet knows that. The chart showed that. You could have a river at source impacted by turf or forestry, further down by pasture farming, further down by septic tanks, down further by tillage farming, further by urban waste, further down by industry and at the mouth of the river, urban waste again. BUT they all will add up to 100% when it's all broken down.
Now you could make up your own rules on mathematics and declare that now there's 174 parts in 100 per cent and that a previous 36% for farming if there were 100 parts in 100% now becomes 63% but alas that's still not per cent (cent being 100) even though it's presented that way to the reader.
63 per CLXXIV not %
Now the question is were previous graphs for previous years presented as per cent, or CLXXIV but with % at the end to fool the reader.
All that couldn't be any clearer. Agree Injury?
You could just read the report. Or even the comments to the original tweet by gibbons.
I don't think it's too hard a concept to understand that a river can be impacted by more than 1 activity.
First thought that came to mind is neighbours stealing off neighbours because travelers are in town. Cruise ships might be part of a problem or an opportunity. I wouldn't generally have much regard for local Govt given the problems in the area.
I farm in the area, I hadn't seen the map so I was taking the bay description more literally than it's represented on the map. Land is what you make of it and can be as easy or hard to work as the individual wants, that's my experience, it's mostly a mindset issue.
I agree it's not likely farming here is to blame for water quality issues generally. Though if anything I would look more at sprays than fertiliser or stock density issues.
In one of the bay's that has a "transitional water body" there is two discharge points into the bay. I had a photo or video at one time of a dirty looking patch on the sea surface which I assume was sewerage being discharged at that time.
Our village used to draw it's water supply from a lake which is now green and closed in. Knowing the lands around that lake I can't blame anything other than septic tanks.
Fado, fado I applied to the coco for a job. Thankfully I didn't get it. In the interview my occupation was brought up and I was asked about the pollution farming was causing in Lough Corrib. Passed it off since I don't farm near there but I thought it was instructive. I believe some towns around the Corrib subsequently were discovered to have treatment issues.
It's my understanding that the area hatched in blue is the galway bay north area and I've friends farming in this area who readily admit that land is poor and hard to farm. Its not my intention to be ignorant but that's the reality of farming in this area and my initial post indicated that its near impossible to farm at an intensive level and that reasoning for poor water quality wasn't due to farming.
Im inclined to take Injury's take on this graph...though it it highly and I would say intentionally misleading.
It shows that, of the impacted water bodies, that 63% of them are impacted by agriculture, but also states that 90% of them are impacted by urban sources.
A waterbody can be impacted by several sources.
It doesn't give the level of impaction, which is critical. There is no indication whatsoever as to the level of pollution is coming from any source, only to state that it is a source.
90% of the impaction could be coming from urban wastewater for instance...it just doesn't say.
If you consider that proba ly more than 90% of a waterbodies contact is with agricultural land and a tiny % of its contact is with urban, the fact that 90% of the impacted waterbodies are impacted from urban and industrial sources is astounding.
Make no mistake about it...this report was presented in a way with the purpose of pulling down the current limits of the nitrates directive and subsequent reductions in animal numbers.
At best it’s poor data presentation from data professionals, on the most serious of subjects.
At worst it’s misleading and biased. A mortal sin for scientists.
Either way, they allowed themselves open to criticism which could have been avoided.
Why is it broken down into sections and %'s used?
If I have a pie and it's 100% you can not make 174% of the same pie.
Likewise emissions, pollution whatever it's called cannot be made 74% extra of what it is. It can only be 100% and broken down where it came from that 100%.
Or do you not know how percentages work?
Face it, it's made up figures.
Or please explain further your interpretation of that graph because messages of less than 10 words defending the cock up aren't really cutting it.
What is the purpose of this graph that was shown by the epa to farmers and environmentalists?
It. Does. Not. Have. To. Add. Up. To. 100%.
You're not understanding the purpose of the graph.
I heard someone complaining about tests going down after cruise ships being in the bay.
But sure nobody could possibly link those two together. 🙂
Probably same reason I wouldn't make sea salt from the water in our own bay, the coco pumps raw sewerage into it.
What reason would you give Herd for the deterioration in water quality in Galway Bay North?
You posted the area being all mountain sheep, it certainly isn't. North of the N59 is predominantly sheep, South is predominately sucklers. People farm the land they have, describing it as "horrific" is a bit ignorant tbh. There are plenty of farmers making their living from farms on such land.
Do you not think it's a serious bit of propaganda designed with a message but with info that doesn't stack up?
Agriculture 63%
Forestry 14%
Urban Waste Water 13%
Domestic Waste Water 9%
Other 9%
Peat Harvesting 7%
Urban Run Off 12%
Industry 5%
Mines/Quarries 3%
To be assessed 11%
Hydromorphology 28%
The whole lot totals 174%.
If it totalled 163% you'd say the agriculture figure is a total of the smaller figures.
But we'll have a stab at what could be included as agriculture. Forestry, Other, To be assessed, Hydromorphology are the only ones that can be classed in agriculture and even then there's a very big argument that why should those be classed as agriculture with such a vague heading and most would qualify forestry as not agriculture. But those headings come to 62%.
174 - 62 = 112. That leaves the 12. The 12 could be taken as the To be assessed but that's already taken as the vague heading I included under agriculture.
So that leads us back to the EPA presentation and social media and big circles and figures for attention for tweets and retweets and thanks and likes.
The social media age and hearts and minds. This graph will probably be used again by the EPA at biofarm 2022.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/99cb88aba86d6cd761548c5d5bb50f6a.svg)
