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.
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 can manipulate figures to tell whatever tale you like. That's a well known fact.
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.
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?
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.
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
In at night here since Wednesday
Had to change all 3 legged cubicles to bolt I'm, have em on next few days at nite
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%.......
Foundation level maths.
Must do better. You're trolling since the start of this.
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
Intensive agriculture is the cause....except the county with the most cows has the best rivers...!!!
Shir we're the best at everything shir, being bad and being good
Really looking forward to the dairy show this year. Missed 2 with COVID.
Always good day out .going Friday
And the worst 4 are high population centres.i wonder can we draw any conclusions
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
No I didn't read the report I selected what suited my agenda.terrible behaviour but could it be that I was the only one that did that.judging by what I ve seen and heard I think not.cork with 390 k dairy cows has the best rivers.dublin with 2700 cows has the worst.i keep saying it the situation on the ground does not add up with the propaganda
As charlie mc creevy said years ago about the nice treaty. You would want to be mad to read that bloody thing. Or something to that effect anyway.
Depends what catchments you look at in Cork - obviously not alot of cows in the large mountainous areas in the NW of the county(were the best water quality is found) while Cork being the largest county in the country is going to naturally have more livestock(including cows) then the small counties like Dublin or Louth(and always did). Obviously water quality issues within agriculture are related to stocking rates and the general density of intensive farming operations in particular, which is why the report is broken down into catchments not counties(which was why I asked if you had bothered to read it??) . Again my point was that prior to the 70's, the main issues with water quality in this country were confined to larger urban centres, which is hardly a surprise for obvious reasons, the issue now though is that water quality in the last 40-50 years has crashed over most of the rest of the country, hence the focus on "other sources" that impact rural watersheds including ground water and group water schemes.
You would want to brush up on your cork geography
The thing that I keep going back to is the massive improvement in pratices through out the country that has gone in agriculture over the last 20 years and yet water quality is deteriorating.drove through the an area close to us yesterday and you could see plenty work going on and done recently.came home then and the boys showed me a video on a local lad milking 1500 cows in England the gas thing was it was all self feeding out of the pit.i don't know of any yard doing that here.bale silage has become very popular and most lads make an effort to get bales as dry as they can.and as for nitrate use it look like putin has sorted that.whztever about before lads are being very careful now about fertiliser usage.yeah it's great to harp back to the sixties but if you are going to do that do it for all aspects of society and how its development has affected the environment. By the way many of the catchments in cork that are in trouble would have an urban aspect to them as well
Any or all of the catchements in Cork with a problem have an urban element to them and problem obviously eminates where human population on the rivers increases..
Our local river is poor status due nitrates but it’s a very extensive area with regards to livestock
there is dairy but only 7 of us in the general area and 4 of them are new entrants in the last 4 years
predominant farming practices are extensive sucklers and sheep and tillage
EPA map of Agricultural Pressures..
Do you need someone to draw the county boundary for you?
What are the actual parameter numbers? That is the numbers that represent a 'crash'. Good/fair/bad are all relative terms. Surely the EPA measures numbers?
Wonder does land type have an effect, lot of red in north kerry into limerick on that map but not much in mid cork ( cow numbers/acre would be roughly the same ?? )
see were Philip hayes is taking over that desperate rte programme countrywide, apparently his currently presenting a climate action programme on radio 1. Just further confirmation of what little regard rte have for farmers. Never got over that gobshite they found that has 700 cows and if he had to reduce to 500 with national herd reductions he’d be out of business.
I was referring to areas like Gougane Barra and the Sheehy Mtns etc.- sorry if i confused you...
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)