Ragwort

[sueonmull]

I see you don't want to reply to me and looking around on Google you have had real trouble defending your points when debating the issue. I really am not sure at all that you should be as confident in your beliefs as you are. For example your claim that a post mortem can positively identify PA poisoning doesn't agree with the text books.

 

Ragwort poisoning no test can confirm ragwort poisoning 100%

 

Hi Prunus,

My reluctance to reply is purely because of the predictable nature and recognisable style of your comments.

There is perhaps an example of nit-picking in one of my previous posts on another Arbtalk thread, if there’s anything else you’d like me to justify/expand on please just ask. Perhaps you could PM me to prevent the thread potentially deteriorating.

I don’t think I mentioned horses in my posts but if you have any issues with the information put out by equine charities then I’d certainly hope you’d take that up with them, I can only speak for myself.

You are correct about being unable to positively attribute liver damage to PAs, my original post is nearly 12 months old and things do move on – are you suggesting that means PA toxicity doesn’t exist? There are websites out there that need updates in other areas and I suggest you might want to encourage them to do so.

As for criticising my debating skills that perhaps not for me to judge but it’s never a positive approach to an any issue. I think with any contentious subject it is important to look for common ground and build on it. For the elimination of any doubt I am all for appropriate control as opposed to no control.

FERA produced a report for DEFRA collating all the scientific data on ragwort and identifying gaps where further work is required. If you Google “Review of Evidence concerning Ragwort Impacts Ecology and Control options” anyone interested can download it. It needs to be read as a whole document as selective quotes can be misleading – issues are not black and white.

[Prunus]

I see you are once again using this forum on social media to advance your personal cause. I have googled you and this is an example of your technique. you take a small piece from the scientific literature out of context and use it to make an unsuportable claim.

 

 

• FROM SUEONMULL

• For information this is a quote from THE ECOLOGY OF RAGWORT (SENECIO JACOBAEA L.) - A REVIEW, the New Zealand paper often referred to:

"No study has yet investigated the influence of strong

winds on the long-distance disperal of ragwort seeds,

yet such winds, even if occasional, could still be highly

important. At Arthurs Pass and near Cass, isolated

ragwort plants may have been derived from seed

blown by strong north-west winds from the Westland

side of the main divide, possibly many kilometres (C.

Burrows, pers. comm.). Sheldon and Burrows (1973)

concluded that long distance dispersal of disc achenes

would occur only if the dispersal unit was carried high

into the atmosphere by convection currents."

There are other accepted seed dispersal mechanisms, specifically water courses and animals.

 

 

• JeanPaulDubois IN REPLY TO SUEONMULL

3 Aug 2014 16:51

3 4

But it is not fair to make an argument like this. The paragraph before the one you choose. It said.

"While large numbers of seeds are usually produced,

they appear to exhibit relatively poor disperal. Wind is

probably the major dispersal agent. An experiment

conducted by Poole and Cairns (1940) at Piopio,

which involved trays being set out at various distances

from a patch of ragwort plants to trap seed, found

that 60% of the seeds produced were released from

the seedhead, presumably by wind. The majority of

these were dispersed downwind from the prevailing

(north-easterly) direction, and mostly within a few

metres. An almost insignificant minority were

dispersed as far as 36.6 metres. The data show that

the dispersal pattern of ragwort seeds in space is

approximately elliptical, with the centre of the ellipse

a few metres downwind from the source of the seeds."

It is a New Zealand study. The plant there it is not native so any spread might be highly important because the invader is carried to new places. Here in Europe it is a natural plant. Some small number of seeds carried high by convection currents is invisible in effect. It is not to be thought of.

I search "quote mining" and I find it is what you do here. It is the tactic of the creationists, who take something small from something big to make it seem that they are right.

The other pages of that paper also say the seeds do not go far.

You do not use the context properly.

I find this good quote,

"Pseudoscientists often reveal themselves by their handling of the scientific literature. Their idea of doing scientific research is simply to read scientific periodicals and monographs. They focus on words, not on the underlying facts and reasoning."

All the underlying facts and reasoning in that paper says seeds do not normally go far by the wind.

[sueonmull]

I see you are once again using this forum on social media to advance your personal cause. I have googled you and this is an example of your technique. you take a small piece from the scientific literature out of context and use it to make an unsuportable claim.

 

 

• FROM SUEONMULL

• For information this is a quote from THE ECOLOGY OF RAGWORT (SENECIO JACOBAEA L.) - A REVIEW, the New Zealand paper often referred to:

"No study has yet investigated the influence of strong

winds on the long-distance disperal of ragwort seeds,

yet such winds, even if occasional, could still be highly

important. At Arthurs Pass and near Cass, isolated

ragwort plants may have been derived from seed

blown by strong north-west winds from the Westland

side of the main divide, possibly many kilometres (C.

Burrows, pers. comm.). Sheldon and Burrows (1973)

concluded that long distance dispersal of disc achenes

would occur only if the dispersal unit was carried high

into the atmosphere by convection currents."

There are other accepted seed dispersal mechanisms, specifically water courses and animals.

 

 

• JeanPaulDubois IN REPLY TO SUEONMULL

3 Aug 2014 16:51

3 4

But it is not fair to make an argument like this. The paragraph before the one you choose. It said.

"While large numbers of seeds are usually produced,

they appear to exhibit relatively poor disperal. Wind is

probably the major dispersal agent. An experiment

conducted by Poole and Cairns (1940) at Piopio,

which involved trays being set out at various distances

from a patch of ragwort plants to trap seed, found

that 60% of the seeds produced were released from

the seedhead, presumably by wind. The majority of

these were dispersed downwind from the prevailing

(north-easterly) direction, and mostly within a few

metres. An almost insignificant minority were

dispersed as far as 36.6 metres. The data show that

the dispersal pattern of ragwort seeds in space is

approximately elliptical, with the centre of the ellipse

a few metres downwind from the source of the seeds."

It is a New Zealand study. The plant there it is not native so any spread might be highly important because the invader is carried to new places. Here in Europe it is a natural plant. Some small number of seeds carried high by convection currents is invisible in effect. It is not to be thought of.

I search "quote mining" and I find it is what you do here. It is the tactic of the creationists, who take something small from something big to make it seem that they are right.

The other pages of that paper also say the seeds do not go far.

You do not use the context properly.

I find this good quote,

"Pseudoscientists often reveal themselves by their handling of the scientific literature. Their idea of doing scientific research is simply to read scientific periodicals and monographs. They focus on words, not on the underlying facts and reasoning."

All the underlying facts and reasoning in that paper says seeds do not normally go far by the wind.

 

 

These comments are from a Guardian article. For anyone who isn't already bored to death they can read all the comments here: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/31/pulborough-brooks-sussex-shining-blossoms-divide-opinions#comments

I'll be adding no more to this thread.

[headgroundsman]

I think you should either believe it is a good thing to pull ragwort. Which I do. Or believe it is a waste of time. Which I don't. I know I prefer to see less and less on my land thank to see it spreading everywhere. I have given up trying to convert none believers and just get on with what I believe is right. Mud slinging and slagging people off just because their opinion is different to mine is something I don't do.

[Peasgood]

I don't particularly like doing it but pulling it certainly reduces numbers on my place.

[ArthurBottlesworth]

I've heard of people selling it in bunches to tourists in lay byes

 

Sounds like best way of getting rid of it to me ...

[Mick Dempsey]

You know when a thread keeps appearing and you think to yourself "nah not for me" and never open it, then one day you do and wow!

[born2trot]

Bhs claims it toxic in 2014 !!! lol ... This statement can only be made by someone who never has had horses .

Ragwort in your horses paddock = laziness