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.

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.

Cold you put a top on it and use it as a bird 🐦 feeder table?

Would look nice but it's in a quite exposed spot and it gets pretty windy here so likely to get blown to bits.

Carve a toadstool

Thanks Betula, I'd thought of carving something interesting like a mushroom, sadly I'm lacking skills in the whittling department and it may end up looking like something which would bring down the tone of the neighbourhood. It's still a possibility though if I can find someone on the island who could do it and it would still be able to accommodate insects.

Thanks everyone will try to use all your ideas.

We have just had a tree cut down because the roots at the bottom were rotting. Have left the stump about 3 foot high. Before I cut it down to the base I’m looking for ideas on what to do with it, specifically with respect to providing nest sites for insects – it’s probably in too windy for anything to grow up it. Any thoughts?

Sue, Thanks for alerting me, I can take the flack for using the word incorrectly and would ask any naturalist what word I should be using to describe a plant which spreads out of control to areas where it is not wanted:biggrin:

 

.

If you're short of words I've learnt a fair few Scottish ones that might suit .....!

Steve, I rented a field up till two years ago, and although you dont know much about me you could take a fair shot at where I stand on grazing and ragwort. Yesterday I took a picture of that field, I had seen a few stems by the gate, but I was horrified when I got out of my truck to take this picture. How can anyone allege that ragwort is not invasive.

Oh bugger, poor you.

I bet someone will pick you up on the invasive word. Funnily enough I’ve just been having a long twitter conversation with someone about how the word is used. As a layman I use the term invasive probably as you do – for something that basically is unwanted and encroaching somewhere I don't want it to. However naturalists use the term invasive ONLY to describe non-native species of flora or fauna.

So whilst most will understand perfectly what you are saying, anyone who wants to nit pick will say your maligning a native plane which is an excuse to tell you you don’t know what you’re talking about!

You have my sympathy.

Some total male chicken did that outside one of my fields 20 years ago. Unfortunately by the time I found it, one of my horses had reached over the fence and eaten the now dry and crunchy plants. Anyone who says that ragwort is harmless, should have seen my face the next day when the vet put my beloved friend to sleep. The liver/kidney damage is irreversible.

That's horrible, so sorry.

Hi all today I seen today a Load of ragwort in with 10 horses in a large field and there is rag wort everywhere 😩😩😩thanks Jon

Unfortunately if you go on the internet (twitter or facebook) you'll find people saying that's not a problem as long as it is a big enough field and there is enough grass for them to eat - good excuse to do nothing in my book and not a good way of educating those livestock owner who know no better.

Witnessed with my own eyes this very evening....

 

Our neighbour who leases Cornwall council fields adjacent to our place, walking the fields hand pulling Rag.

 

I walk the dogs 30mins after he's left and there's the pile he pulled cast on the verge where his car was parked.

 

Words fail me...,

Me too, that's probably the worst thing anyone can do with ragwort short of putting it directly in a hay rack! So difficult with it being a neighbour - I assume they understand the potential consequences of what they've done?

I don't see how Ragwort could become a serious problem in a well managed meadow that is covered in a variety of grasses, plants and flowers because the seeds wouldn't be able to find much bare soil.

 

From what I've noticed, the fields that Ragwort do best on have been over grazed..... leaving lots of bare patches of soil for the Ragwort seeds to grow in. And brown field sites.

 

I'm not saying that a field stuffed full of Ragwort is a good thing either; I see that as a sign that the natural balance has been pushed too far.

 

Cheers, steve

Pasture management is certainly important and as a very broad generalisation what you say is true Steve. Ragwort germination rates are lower in ‘ideal’ pastures and it is less likely to become established but it will still germinate and if is growing abundantly on nearby ground that makes pasture management all the more challenging. I’ve been doing my own ‘field trials’ over the past few years and contrary to what I had read I actually find more ragwort seedlings in the dense areas of grass than in the bare patches/rabbit scrapes that I’d deliberately left to see what grows.

The majority of seedlings are unlikely to develop to become larger rosettes or even mature plants but they are still toxic and may be eaten ‘hidden’ in amongst longer grasses either fresh or wilted. May be little and often but that is the insidious nature of chronic poisoning. It’s very easy to see flowering ragwort plants, less easy to see the rosettes and even more difficult to spot the early seedlings.

FERA carried out a review of the evidence concerning ragwort impacts, ecology and control options. It is an interesting read highlighting gaps in the data which require further work. Link is here

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCwQFjACahUKEwjc86HCwd3GAhWGWBQKHQ_PAs4&url=http%3A%2F%2Frandd.defra.gov.uk%2FDocument.aspx%3FDocument%3D12217_Reviewofevidenceconcerningragwortimpactsecologyandcontroloptions.pdf&ei=TYSmVZyZIoaxUY-ei_AM&usg=AFQjCNFACEaNBIAQMjggqQL1fIXsqyZksA&bvm=bv.97653015,d.ZGU

It is worth reading the whole document but (at the risk of being accused of quote mining!) if I can point you to page 42 it says “It has been shown experimentally under greenhouse conditions that 35 days post sowing, 30.8% of seeds will germinate on bare ground as opposed to 14.4% on short pasture and 15.2% on long pasture (Phung and Popay, 1981).” OK so it’s greenhouse/ideal conditions but germination is only reduced by half on long pasture compared to bare ground which in the scheme of things is still a lot of seedlings when you consider that, as a very conservative figure, a single ragwort plant can produce 50000 seeds. If only 1% germinated that’s still a fair number.

Apol's for putting my text inside the quote but wanted to take each point in turn and limited to iPhone at mo.

 

Not looking to lock horns Sue, just trying to take a look through both ends of the telescope.

No locking horns at this end either Kevin good to try and see from all sides.

Domestication/selective breeding whether that be with animals or crops undoubtedly has an effect but whether it has solved more problems than it has caused is a whole new area for discussion.

"Doesn't belong near livestock or grazing". That's an interesting perspective and unfortunately it seems quite stereotypical of the modern mainstream agricultural sector where the cost of intensive agriculture is to decimate all that stands in its way regardless of the unintended consequences?

 

Could it be argued that grazing "doesn't belong" where nature would otherwise find an equilibrium? Or, as has been suggested in the thread, that animals have an inherent "knowledge" of what should be avoided?

 

Or is there a middle ground?

First just a quick correction of the quote, I wrote “doesn’t belong in or near livestock grazing” not "doesn't belong near livestock or grazing“

Domestication and selective breeding of stock complicates the issue of instinctive behaviour, this article is interesting http://www.cals.uidaho.edu/sustag/launchbaugh.pdf

Not all farmers fit the stereotype you describe, for example this award winning farm manages to help wildlife to thrive https://www.buglife.org.uk/blog/matt-shardlow-ceo/controlled-life-and-wildlife despite not tolerating thistles, docks, nettles and ragwort.

Few are suggesting eradication or decimation of any native species and I totally agree there's always middle ground.

Were tests carried out to make sure it was only the Ragwort that caused it?.... a percentage of animals get problems even on a 100% Ragwort free diet.

Some animals munch a fair amount of Ragwort with no problems as well.

cheers

Certain species are more sensitive but within each species the sex, age, diet, general health etc of each individual can affect its susceptibility to PAs and some species may be very resistant to some PAs but highly sensitive to others. It’s a minefield out there and there will always be exceptions to the rule such as animals that can apparently consume unusually large quantities of the toxic plant with no obvious side effects.

Due to the cumulative nature of damage caused by PAs animals may appear clinically normal and show no symptoms at all until months after any ragwort has been consumed. Even with a post mortem the cause of death cannot be 100% attributed to ragwort.

Websites such as the one you quoted earlier Steve suggest those wanting a proportionate level of ragwort control (within 50m of grazing/hay fields) are hysterical and in the process they are convincing people that ragwort is really nothing to worry about.

Following the guidelines of the Ragwort Code of Practice should atleast ensure that ragwort is removed only where it is judged to be a risk. Where it is not it can be left for the benefit of invertebrates.

Pasture management plays an important part in reducing ragwort in grazing but appropriate control in neighbouring areas is also important giving those who maintain grazing and/or grow forage, perhaps as their livelihood, the best chance of producing a ragwort free product.

One of the problems with having ragwort in grazing land, is that it can thrive and spread, and if it spreads to hay meadows then drastic action, such as spraying might be undertaken to get rid of it, but the herbicides which effectively deal with ragwort will also do away with many species of more useful flora

Agree. Ragwort is more dangerous in hay but it is still dangerous in grazing. Even in lush grazing young seedlings can be eaten when small, in drought conditions ragwort plants survive better than grass, when trampled/seeded/wilted ragwort will be eaten and some animals do just get a taste for it. That’s without considering that once established ragwort is very difficult to control and seeds will build up in the field’s seed bank storing up problems for future years.

I was looking at a solitary Ragwort plant today and it was covered in honey bees and bumble bees. I think nature is trying to tell us something here. cheers, Steve

Ragwort has it's place along with a range of other plants that support invertebrates, often ragwort dominates and that's not good either.

I do have a problem when some want to remove all controls and are even suggesting ragwort should be tolerated in grazing land.

Everything you need to know about Ragwort is here: Ragwort Facts. All the ragwort science and information that you need to know. cheers, Steve

The person who wrote the ‘ragwort facts’ website works with an environmental group that wants to repeal the Weeds Act and Ragwort Control Act, perhaps worth bearing this in mind when reading.

My own personal view is shown in more detail in post #52 here http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/general-chat/89098-ragwort-6.html#post1317369

Ragwort is fine if it's not allowed to dominate an area but it doesn’t belong in or near livestock grazing or land used to produce preserved forage. Under the risk assessment outlined in the Ragwort Code of Practice removal of ragwort is usually only required within 50m of grazing land/land used to produce forage.

Sheep are less susceptible to ragwort poisoning than other grazing animals, and some breeds more tolerant than others. However young animals are more prone and even older ones will suffer if they eat excessive amounts.

I came across the myth/facts website and the author’s associated blog some time ago. I approached the facts with an open mind and read those references provided and then also others that were not. I found many of the quotes were biased and misleading, sometimes relying heavily on nit picking and very selective editing. In some cases the information was simply wrong

Few are calling for ragwort to be eradicated, the Ragwort Code of Practice outlines how to risk assess and remove where appropriate and it also details legal aspects and landowner/occupier responsibilities with respect to controlling its spread. Anyone interested can read it here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69264/pb9840-cop-ragwort.pdf

Ragwort is more dangerous in hay but it is still dangerous in grazing. Even in lush grazing young seedlings can be eaten when small, in drought conditions ragwort plants survive better than grass, when trampled/seeded/wilted ragwort will be eaten and some animals do just get a taste for it. That’s without considering that once established ragwort is very difficult to control and seeds will build up in the field’s seed bank storing up problems for future years.

Following the Ragwort Code of Practice and removing only where it is judged to be a risk should keep everyone happy. Sadly while some conservation groups promote tolerating ragwort in grazing and even want to repeal the weeds act and ragwort control act, they are doing a very good job of convincing people that ragwort is really nothing to worry about which does nothing to educate those owners who keep their animals in poor conditions.

Ragwort as a plant is not consistent – the total pyrrolizidine alkaloid content and types of PAs it contains may vary such that two identical looking plants growing next to other can be different, with soil type and growing conditions having an additional effect. As regards the toxicity to animals it is well documented that certain species are more sensitive but within each species the sex, age, diet, general health etc of each individual can affect its susceptibility to PAs and some species may be very resistant to some PAs but highly sensitive to others. It’s a minefield out there and there will always be exceptions to the rule such as animals that can apparently consume unusually large quantities of the toxic plant with no obvious side effects.

With respect to handling the plant, I would always recommend using gloves as I usually do myself when handling anything which may cause an adverse/allergic reaction. I did become rather more lax when I read that apparently the PAs in ragwort were in N-oxide form so needed to be ingested before they caused any adverse affects. I then found out that with improvements in analytical techniques, significant amounts of the more toxic free base WERE present in ragwort. To me personally it is of no huge importance and anyone who handles any plant needs to take whatever precautions they see fit – particularly if they have broken skin. I worry more about dismissing the possibility purely by making an incorrect assumption especially when injected PA has been shown to be toxic.

Unlike most other poisonous plants, those containing PA (and few are as common and difficult to control in grazing as ragwort) cause cumulative damage and a toxic dose doesn’t have to be eaten all at once, it can be eaten little by little over an extended period of months or even years. Even then the animal may show no symptoms at all until long after any ragwort has been eaten. Some animals may returned to some clinical normality, but they may be unable to cope with additional stress whether that be by having a limited ability to fight illness and disease or ‘simply’ being intolerant of exercise. Once symptoms show the animal may be beyond any treatment.

Ragwort is toxic but how many animals die directly or indirectly from ragwort poisoning is an impossible question to answer. A post mortem is currently the only way to positively confirm PA poisoning, few are carried out and even then the precise source of the PA is unlikely to be determined.

In my opinion ragwort doesn’t belong anywhere in or near grazing or land used to produce preserved forage be that hay/silage/haylage or pelletised feed.

Following the guidelines of the Ragwort Code of Practice should atleast ensure that ragwort is removed only where it is judged to be a risk. Where it is not it can be left for the benefit of invertebrates. Pasture management plays an important part in reducing ragwort in grazing but appropriate control in neighbouring areas is also important giving those who maintain grazing and/or grow forage, perhaps as their livelihood, the best chance of producing a ragwort free product.