EU Biodiversity strategy 2030

Phosphate and Nitrate results for rivers in Ireland. Note its all along the western sea board where they want a full scale rewetting and land out of agriculture purely for 'so called' CO2 emissions of land on peat soil.

Funnily this land type according to the EPA is doing no damage to bio diversity in terms of aquatic sources. Taking this land out of agriculture would put further pressure on the more intensive agricultural land in the East to take up the slack resulting in more fertilizer etc and making these rivers far worse than they already are.

These EU top down approach proposals are nothing but virtue signaling that only make problems worse.

Also note the 'unintentional' optics on the Phosphate chart above, the real values are on the lower right hand side, the ring chart on the left hand side showing 'High' in blue at 58% at first glance a reader would presume High readings of Phosphate and match the blue with the all the dots on the Ireland map. Instead of High it should have been labelled as Very Good and colored green to indicate that - Just simple subtle things like that shows how narratives and agendas are pushed

Clear and blatant agenda being pushed.

Everyone is a stakeholder in this, not only farmers, multiple industries, councils, governments, regulatory agencies, everyday citizens. I don't have a gripe against anyone. I'm merely pointing out that farming has a negative impact on ireland's environment. While the situation will improve thanks to stricter regulations and hopefully this incoming EU strategy, however, sadly things will get worse elsewhere in the world.

It's very easy to dismiss academics as unproductive or irrelevant when you're a stakeholder and it's part of your livelihood but dismissive comments like yours is rooted in confirmation bias, they benefit nobody. Instead, it stifles debate, impedes the transfer of knowledge, and prevents us farmers from recognising and addressing the shortcomings in our current practices. Without studies, we would continue to damage our ecosystems unknowingly risking irreversible harm.

Engineers continually analyse and improve upon technology, so we must continually analyse and improve upon our farming practices to ensure they're sustainable for the next generation and those to come. Would you dismiss engineering or medical research in the same way due to confirmation bias, even when it goes against what you believe or want to be true? While you may be the posterboy for environmentally friendly farming doesn't mean the majority of farmers are.

Let me clarify if I may. As I said in follow-up posts, it is not only livestock farmers who are the cause of the degradation of our national environment, there are many stakeholders.

Relating to the issue in Athy, It's true that farmers are frequently cause in the middle of policy changes and market dynamics that forced them to adapt their practices. Just as farming has evolved throughout the past couple decades, so has out understanding of the environment and the impact our actions have on it. Yes farmers were going what the regulations asked and following best practice advice from the likes of Teagasc, but our knowledge of sustainable practices and the environment has increased over the past decade and continues to evolve and improve. Some practices that were considered to be 'good' years ago are not seen in the same light today.

Your concerns about the narrative that portrays farmers as the main culprits behind our environmental pollution and biodiversity degradation - I believe that it isn't about vilifying farmers, rather it's about understanding the impacts of all activities and working towards more sustainable practices. I can completely understand why you and many posters on this forum see it an attack. The reality is that all agriculture including livestock farming, contributes a significant amount of emissions and water pollution.

If you read the Crops 2030 plan/report, the aim is to balance economic and environment sustainability. It states that certain farming practices like cropping, produces lower greenhouse gas emissions compared to others. As for your point on overall increase of emissions despite static herd numbers, you have to consider other sources as well including Crops for animal feed, the transport of said animal feed crops and management of slurry, as well as other non-agri factors. The report details that specialist tillage farms in Ireland produce 1.18tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents per hectare (1.18t CO2 eq/ha). This is just 15% of that produced on Irish dairy farms (8.7t CO2 eq/ha) and is just 25% of that produced on Irish beef farms (4.4t CO2 eq/ha).

If you're dubious re the Crop 2030 report, ill refer you to a research paper supported by the US department of energy, which supports to some degree the Crops 2030 report, saying livestock farming causes far higher emissions than tillage.

Regarding the improvement of water quality in cork, while the report does say some places have improved, there are still a huge amount of areas over the safe threshold. It's important to note that average rainfall(mm) in cork airport region for example has decreased from the years 2020-2023, from 1407mm(2020)- 2021(1244mm) -1150mm(2022). So your argument does not necessarily indicate that farmers have improved their practices while herd size has increased, rather there wasn't the same amount of rainfall to push the pollutants into our rivers and estuary's. But that's not to say that next year won't be a higher in terms of rainfall which would see the pollutants soar.

Your point about the oversimplified blame on livestock farming is well taken. A more nuanced understanding of the multiple sources of environmental impact is important for our society to tackle going forward. However, while it's true that tillage ground can lose carbon and contribute to nitrogen runoff, you should note that different farming practices have varied impacts on the environment as I mentioned in the reports/research papers above. Crops for human only consumption have lower emissions compared to dairy or beef farming. This isn't meant to shift the blame to livestock farmers but to underline that improvements can be made across the sector.

Pointing to the impacts of one farming practice does not give a "free pass" to other. The aim is to reduce the impacts across all farming practices. Not vilifying one particular sector.

I hear what you're saying relating to earning a living wage on small farms but a lot has changed since the 80's-90's. At that time, Ireland was grappling with severe economic challenges. The unemployment rate hovered around 15-16%,, prompting a massive wave of emigration. And even when you could raise a family on a farm, many farming families were still entrenched in poverty.

Small farms back then were markedly inefficient which did not suit our expanding population or balance of trade. Rapid advancements in agri tech made it cheaper and quicker to produce various goods. Foreign direct investment boomed in the 90's which created more employment opportunities in factories and cities. This shift allowed many to work in less physically demanding work while earning better wages. The aim of CAP was to partly provide financial support during turbulent market conditions, thus helping to maintain their livelihoods and save families from delving further into poverty than they would have without the payments.

CAP included measures to promote sustainable agriculture by asking farmers to adopt more environmentally friendly practices in return for added supports. It helped to improve water quality and soil health. We all know that CAP, and by extension the EU, wasn't/isn't without it's flaws, such the unfair distribution of payments for larger farmers and agri-businesses. The we had rise of globalisation which amplified the demand for cheaper food, which further changed the sector. But today Ireland is one of the richest countries in the world even when you look at GNI. So you can't argue that farmers are worse off today when you look at their quality of life compared to yesteryear.

Seen as you know so much about farming and the environment from these 'peer reviewed' papers, could you answer me how to promote white and red clover through my grassland fields. I am using clover establishment this last few years in order to add nitrogen fixing fungi and beneficial bacteria to my soil in order to create a symbiotic relationship with the grass and hence reduce fertilizer use as well as minimize nitrate run off.

I suspect a simple google will get you there with plenty of 'peer reviewed' papers that will make you feel more knowledgeable and understanding of how simple this task is, but I'd love if you'd enlighten me on your practical experience and thoughts.

If you really want to go and see a proactive, progressive, environmental farmer that's extremely knowledgeable in soil biology and the micro biome then talk to Say My Name, the fact that your dismissing his thoughts tells me all I need to know.

Im curious what you would like to see proposed compared to the current draft of legislation? What is it about the current proposed legislation that angers you the most?

You seem to be more interested in the emissions of livestock related farming as opposed to the bio diversity aspect of it.

As regards emmisions our very own EU rewards multinational companies like Google, Microsoft and Eli Lilly for offsetting emmisions through renewables etc.

Our farm consists of vast areas of naturaly wetted bogland that was never drained. The carbon storage value of this is huge, we get nothing for this and the EU carbon farming proposal categorically states that carbon storage will not be linked to the land rather a flat payment for minding this area. If I was a Multinational company on the EU ETS between the carbon sequestration and renewable energy projects (ELi Lilly solar farm in cork) our farm would be Net Zero. This can also be said for SMEs, huge big corporations are facilitated by the EU with one set of rule books and are allowed a scam of carbon offsets yet everyone one else is condemned as problem childs for climate.

The whole emmisions stuff, net zero and offsetting is a scam designed to guilt and blame everybody else for emmisions as opposed to the real culprits. The term carbon footprint was invented by none other than BP in 2004 to create a mindset of people looking at themselves and how they can be better in terms of carbon emissions, good idea but is was purely to take the spotlight of big corporations and the destruction they are doing by guiltily the average joe