Dairy Chitchat 4, an udder new thread.

I heard someone complaining about tests going down after cruise ships being in the bay.

But sure nobody could possibly link those two together. 🙂

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?

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.

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.

You can manipulate figures to tell whatever tale you like. That's a well known fact.

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?

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

Had to change all 3 legged cubicles to bolt I'm, have em on next few days at nite

Foundation level maths.

Must do better. You're trolling since the start of this.

Intensive agriculture is the cause....except the county with the most cows has the best rivers...!!!

Really looking forward to the dairy show this year. Missed 2 with COVID.

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.