Ragwort and horses

[animartco]

Hi Miss Caretaker. I agree. I think I got hot under the collar on this thread because some people did not seem to care AT ALL that it was a danger to animals. I mean I felt that there was the attitude "If I want to grow it in my garden I shall and if it escapes into the field next door and kills their horses that's their problem." I believe someone more or less said that? It's like 'I want to grow an ash tree next to my neighbours house and if it undermines it that's their problem'. Because it's 'wildlife' people always think they have a right, no, a duty to grow it or defend it no matter who it hurts.
Ragwort NEEDS NO DEFENSE. it must be somewhere around no 20 in Britains commonest weeds? In the Netherlands, Esther do you have thousands of horses grazing in fields which are solid yellow with ragwort flowers? I'm sure you manage your land better than that over there.
The problem with ragwort just simply as a weed, is the same as with thistles. It has a downy seed which can travel for miles. Therefore allowing it to flower creates a nuisance to anyone cultivating land for any reason. And this 'insect magnet' thing is blown out of proportion. Almost every plant is a specific host to some insect, and the insects that congregate on flowers would be delighted to do so on any other flowering plant if there was room for it to fight its way up through the ragwort!

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by animartco

Hi Miss Caretaker. I agree. I think I got hot under the collar on this thread because some people did not seem to care AT ALL that it was a danger to animals. I mean I felt that there was the attitude "If I want to grow it in my garden I shall and if it escapes into the field next door and kills their horses that's their problem.

if its growing in the garden then the chances are good it came from the feild next door , not the other way arround - so its not "escaping" , conversly if ragwort is removed from a feild it is not going to spread back rapidly from a few plants in a garden - it is far more likely to come from seed bank and rootfragments left in the feild. and the control of ragwort on the grazing field is indeed the responsibility of the grazier/landowner if they so desire , and thirdly if it does come back min the field it wont "kill the horses" because they wont eat it green, its only a problem in hay , and the povision of "clean" feed is again the graziers responsibility

Originally Posted by animartco

It's like 'I want to grow an ash tree next to my neighbours house and if it undermines it that's their problem'.

umm no its not , thats entirely different because it is your tree which is causing the problem not the thousands of tiny trees regrowing on the neighbours plot - once again you have created a logical non sequiter

Originally Posted by animartco

Because it's 'wildlife' people always think they have a right, no, a duty to grow it or defend it no matter who it hurts.

a sweeping generalisation and completely unfounded - the point is that in most cases its not hurting anyone - where is it is then fine control it, but blanket eradication is not justified

Originally Posted by animartco

agwort NEEDS NO DEFENSE. it must be somewhere around no 20 in Britains commonest weeds?

any source or evidence to back this up ?

Originally Posted by animartco

In the Netherlands, Esther do you have thousands of horses grazing in fields which are solid yellow with ragwort flowers?

thats not routinely the case here either - but even if it was there would be no problem because they wont eat it in the green, which is why they can be grazed in feilds like that.
.

Originally Posted by animartco

The problem with ragwort just simply as a weed, is the same as with thistles. It has a downy seed which can travel for miles. Therefore allowing it to flower creates a nuisance to anyone cultivating land for any reason.

not so - defra categorise it as a serious risk (of seeding into graxzing areas) if it is growing within 100 yds.

Originally Posted by animartco

And this 'insect magnet' thing is blown out of proportion. Almost every plant is a specific host to some insect, and the insects that congregate on flowers would be delighted to do so on any other flowering plant if there was room for it to fight its way up through the ragwort!

again not so insects requiring specific hosts will not go to other species just because they are there.

[Esther Hegt]

Originally Posted by animartco

In the Netherlands, Esther do you have thousands of horses grazing in fields which are solid yellow with ragwort flowers? I'm sure you manage your land better than that over there.
!

In the Netherlands there is also a lot of ragwort. But you can't blame the plant for pastures who are bad managed. Furthermore, it is a fact that Ragwort is currently more common in the Netherlands than 30 years ago, but a myth that this species is an extremely efficient wind disperser

According to literature I wrote a page about seed dispersal also with photo's.

Esther

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by Cotham Marble

....Are you suggesting that everyone but you, who has contributed to this thread has a 'vested interest' and that you are somehow uniquely endowed with unbiased and overarching perception ? ....

Most certainly not. You will note that my original use of that comment was supplemented with a grin smiley, indicating that I was making the comment with light hearted intent. I had agreed with eeyore's take on the potential for selective use of data, and was happy to accept that being neither horse owner nor having more than passing interest in the defense of ragwort, I would have nothing further to add to the debate. In light of that, having made my original observation - be it right or wrong, (which, correct me if I'm wrong, every member of WAB is perfectly entitled to do), my intent to bow out, and leave it to those who had.

Originally Posted by Cotham Marble

....Perhaps you would condescend to address such a minor question as "Why was it necessary to incur costs of £100ks to bring in the 2003 Act when the only substantive conseqence was a Management Plan that could have easily been developed by the interested bodies given a perusal of the science and commitment to simple logic ?....

As I understand it, the 2003 Ragwort Act is simply a less than half page amendment, enacted by House of Commons, to the Weeds Act 1959.
Ragwort Control Act 2003 (c. 40) - I hardly think it would have cost £100ks to create that.

As for the subsequent development of the code of practice and your alternative suggestion of a Management plan developed by interested bodies. - Was not the code of practice produced as a result of consultation with interested bodies? And why should it be taken as read that the alternative would have been be any less costly to produce?
Would all of those alternative "interested bodies" have given their time and expertise at no cost?

When replies become personal and pointed. I respond accordingly.

Regards,
Mike.

[Miss Caretaker]

I work in a Junior School as the Caretaker (as my user name implies!) and I do allow ragwort to grow in our nature garden (we have 3 plants growing atm that have arrived naturally) but we are several miles from the nearest grazing land, near the centre of town. If we were next door to a field used for grazing or hay making I wouldn't allow it to grow. I also believe that ragwort on roadside verges and other land anywhere where grazing is not taking place nearby should be left as it is host to insects that depend solely on it and will not use any other plant to lay eggs on etc.

[Neil Jones]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

Hmmm - Seems like I'm not going to be allowed to leave the thread just to those with vested interests, and am obliged to reply thus: -

Because they are specifically listed amongst the "Sources of technical advice on ragwort control" - Appendix 9 of the DEFRA Code of Practice on How to Prevent the Spread of Ragwort.
i.e. The official document relating to Ragwort control in this country!

So what? Some ignorant people in Whitehall agree with them. The science says something different. Argument from authority is a scientific no no.

Nothing more than your own, absolutely unfounded opinion. - If you are going to make sweeping statements like this, then back them up with sound documented evidence.

No actually if Swallowtail is correct. It is fairly obvious. If you look in the scientific literature you will find that each floret or capitulum ( Latin for little head.) will yield around
75 seeds. It varies a bit but this figure is about average and makes the sums easier.

To produce a yield of 150,000 seeds a plant would have to have around 2000 capitula
This is, you will see from the literature, is possible but unusual. Rather like having a man growing to 7 ft tall. Therefore it is reasonable, and obvious to see that 150,000 is way over the top as a figure to communicate to the public.

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by Neil Jones

....So what? Some ignorant people in Whitehall agree with them. The science says something different. Argument from authority is a scientific no no....

So, along with “some ignorant people at Whitehall”, I presume that the scientists at DEFRA, along with all the other “interested parties” involved in the consultation and production of the Code of Practice on How to Prevent the Spread of Ragwort, are included within your statement. As quite obviously, if any of them had any problem with the British Horse Society's modus operandi, they would surely have had something to say about their inclusion as a source of technical advice within the document?

Swallowtail’s exact words, (with reference to British Horse Society leaflet to which I linked in my original post), were: -

Originally Posted by Swallowtail

....Also there is this figure of each plant producing 150,000 seeds this sounds rather large perhaps an exceptionally large plant might produce this but really the figure is hysterically OTT....

In that one sentence, both twisting what the BHS document actually says, (QUOTE "a ragwort plant can produce 150,000 seeds" UNQUOTE – not that each plant does!), and further presenting a wholly unfounded statement that such a number is totally unrealistic.

Ms Hegt’s link Many seeds, many plants? in post #83 above, includes the statement: -

QUOTE
“Common ragwort generally produces between several hundreds and about 200.000 seeds”
UNQUOTE

And that comment is backed up with reference to various scientific publications.

You will note the phrasing “generally produces” – which certainly suggests to me that the production of 150,000 seeds by a single plant would not be considered anything extraordinary, let alone “hysterically OTT”!

In real terms though, it matters not one jot whether the plant produces 10 seeds or ten million. What matters is how many of those seeds actually germinate and grow on, in their turn, into fertile plants. And even then, it only matters where those fertile plants grow, in respect to their proximity to grazing pastures.

I repeat - Like many things, the "problem" needs to be approached rationally, and kept in proportion and context.

I have already said that I have no particular axe to grind one way or another on this subject, but if people wish to make pointed replies, I am quite willing and able to stand my corner. – Lay on, Macduff; And damned be him that first cries, ‘Hold, enough!’

Regards,
Mike.

[Cotham Marble]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

When replies become personal and pointed. I respond accordingly.

Using smilies or not, commenting on other posters' motivations, makes it 'personal', if you think that personal and pointed is better avoided, thn I'd suggest looking at how you construct your own posts instead of complaininghow they are received.

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

As I understand it, the 2003 Ragwort Act is simply a less than half page amendment, enacted by House of Commons, to the Weeds Act 1959.
Ragwort Control Act 2003 (c. 40) - I hardly think it would have cost £100ks to create that.

Establishing the costs of any one legislatative process is difficult but each one runs into £10ks with some exceeding £500k. You linked to the BHS as a valid source of information and justified it on the basis that the BHS wasa contributor to the code of practice which was entrained by th 2003 Act, about which the BHS has to say :

For many years, The British Horse Society has campaigned on the issue of Ragwort and we continue to strive to educate horse and landowners of the dangers Ragwort poses to grazing animals. Among our notable successes was the instrumental and essential role that the BHS played in the instigation of the Control of Ragwort Act (2003).

As an acknowledged promoter of the legislation, it is reasonable to raise the question in relation to the BHS, as to whether the Act was a valid use of Parliamentary resources and whether the Act has actually achieved anything beyond satisfying the BHS's own internalised interests.

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

As for the subsequent development of the code of practice and your alternative suggestion of a Management plan developed by interested bodies. - Was not the code of practice produced as a result of consultation with interested bodies? And why should it be taken as read that the alternative would have been be any less costly to produce?
Would all of those alternative "interested bodies" have given their time and expertise at no cost?

Was the 2003 Act necessary ? The BHS sees it as a success but after 7 years there's little to show that bringing in a new Law was anything other than a waste of time and money when all that was needed was a published guidance from DEFRA. Who has the Act benefitted ? It looks on the face of it as though huge public expense and a distraction of Public Officials' time and attention has been diverted into a cosmetic exercise based on partial science, merely to appease a vocal minority who had it in their own power (pasture management) to deal with the problem they were exercised by.

The fundamental problem that do exist are wholly unaddressed by either the 1959 or 2003 Acts, and those are the lack of any programme to ensure quality of hay sold for fodder, and the keeping of horses on land that is insufficient for the maintenance of equine health. By focussing on ragwort, both these problems have been sidelined.

CM

[Neil Jones]

Originally Posted by animartco

Hi Miss Caretaker. I agree. I think I got hot under the collar on this thread because some people did not seem to care AT ALL that it was a danger to animals. I mean I felt that there was the attitude "If I want to grow it in my garden I shall and if it escapes into the field next door and kills their horses that's their problem." I believe someone more or less said that? It's like 'I want to grow an ash tree next to my neighbours house and if it undermines it that's their problem'. Because it's 'wildlife' people always think they have a right, no, a duty to grow it or defend it no matter who it hurts.
Ragwort NEEDS NO DEFENSE. it must be somewhere around no 20 in Britains commonest weeds? In the Netherlands, Esther do you have thousands of horses grazing in fields which are solid yellow with ragwort flowers? I'm sure you manage your land better than that over there.
The problem with ragwort just simply as a weed, is the same as with thistles. It has a downy seed which can travel for miles.

This is not true. The science is clear. See the studies in the link below. Most of the seeds fall at the base of the plants and the rest only travel a few yards from the plant. There are also good studies in the literature that cover the physics of seed dispersal which confirm this finding. These seeds are actually quite heavy to be blown huge distances.
Ragwort - How far do the seeds disperse?

[PMG]

Ragwort disperses steadily and well along railway lines and motorway embankments where the strong draught from passing trains and lorries carries the seeds further than they were designed by nature to go: it takes more wind energy than might be expected to keep wind dispersed seeds airborne.

Pauline