DEAR SIR: I wish to comment on a number of articles in the Irish Farmers Journal of 24 June 2017. On the inside cover (page 2), there is a reference to farm safety and of course this should be paramount, most especially at this very busy time of year with heavy machinery at full capacity in order to ensure maximum work output so that the equally heavy payments can be met to the bank.

Contrasted with this, however, was an article on page 10 which referred to reports that some of the fields planted under GLAS are awash with rats.

Even this is an understatement as local farmers have reported total ground movement on entering these fields which were planted with oats or linseed as required under GLAS.

Is this not a health and safety issue also? It certainly was from my husband’s perspective when he quickly swiped our eight-year-old off the ground where she was standing in the middle of a GLAS infested field with, as he described, rats as big as cats, with fresh pink feet emerging from every orifice of the field.

And what are the implications where such planting was done in close proximity to dwelling houses or is there a distance requirement like there is with wind turbines? Perhaps you could clarify.

Will there be any issues with regard to disease for cattle that may be let on to such lands afterwards for grazing?

In addition to wild bird cover referenced in the article, it needs to be pointed out that there is also a presence of wild hawks or buzzards that have already depleted much of the chick pheasants reared under another scheme by the NARGC. An unintended consequence, perhaps?

We have also seen under GLAS where farmers were required to cut hedges that birds would habitually build their nests in and instead put up bird boxes – an artificially constructed means of accommodating nature.

All of these schemes developed in Europe and rolled out across the EU member countries are fine and well and there is no doubt that farmers benefit from them with many relying on them to keep the business going.

However, it would seem that many of these schemes are not very well thought through and that farmers are required to comply with all aspects of such schemes even if it goes against their basic common sense and experience of years of farming not to mention the Irish landscape, climate, culture and tradition.

One wonders if those who design these schemes really think outside the box at all. Are they white-collared executives who know anything about the practicalities of farming or are they purely textbook executives and academics who design these schemes without considering the consequences or unintended consequences of their exhilarating ideas?

Finally, on page 63 there is a reference to the “traditional hay meadow” indicating that “despite suitable weather conditions, farmers in GLAS had to resist the temptation to mow the crop”

It went on to advise that where “because of bad weather or for other reasons hay cannot be saved, silage can be made, provided that it is turned “at least twice” before collecting.”

No disrespect to the author, but is this not like telling a chef he could serve chicken as long as it is cooked through? Hello.

The Irish farmer is preoccupied with adhering to the rules and guidelines just to ensure they pass the relevant inspections – it doesn’t ever mean they agree with the concepts but unfortunately and regretfully they are shackled by the level of financial dependency on such schemes.

It seems to have become the case that essentially no matter how ridiculous it gets or how much it contrasts with common sense, it’s not up for discussion – you simply cannot bite off the EU hand that feeds.

So the only remaining option left is to question the logic, give feedback and point out the dangers and someone, somewhere might listen to sense – but does anyone have this specific role and if so who? Perhaps you could clarify.