In article ,
(Francis Burton) writes:
|
| Horses do indeed avoid eating live ragwort because the alkaloids
| make it bitter, but they may start to eat small quantities if the
| rest of the grazing is poor. They may even pick at it when there
| is grass available - I have seen that happen. So horses shouldn't
| be in fields containing ragwort (or vice versa), otherwise they
| could become poisoned.

Or perhaps they shouldn't be kept in the same field until there is
nothing else to eat? As has been repeatedly pointed out, picking at
ragwort will not poison them - it's only making it a primary part of
their diet.

| As you say, horses will eat hay containing dried ragwort. In all
| the bales I've seen containing ragwort, it wasn't very obvious
| because the dried weed was all green, probably because they were
| all flowerless 1st year plants at the time of hay cutting.

If someone has a horse injured by eating ragwort-contaminated hay,
it is obviously possible to sue the supplier. Is anything else
REALLY necessary to restrict this incredibly minor problem?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Nick Maclaren wrote:
| Horses do indeed avoid eating live ragwort because the alkaloids
| make it bitter, but they may start to eat small quantities if the
| rest of the grazing is poor. They may even pick at it when there
| is grass available - I have seen that happen. So horses shouldn't
| be in fields containing ragwort (or vice versa), otherwise they
| could become poisoned.

Or perhaps they shouldn't be kept in the same field until there is
nothing else to eat?

I agree, it's bad management.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, picking at
ragwort will not poison them - it's only making it a primary part of
their diet.

Do you have a cite for that? What proportion of the diet would have
to be ragwort to make it "a primary part"? My understanding is that
a diet containing only 5% of ragwort is toxic, and that clinical
signs are evident at 10%.

If someone has a horse injured by eating ragwort-contaminated hay,
it is obviously possible to sue the supplier. Is anything else
REALLY necessary to restrict this incredibly minor problem?

Education of horse owners would be the most effective action.

Francis

On 11 Aug, 15:17, (Francis Burton) wrote:
In article ,

Nick Maclaren wrote:
| Horses do indeed avoid eating live ragwort because the alkaloids
| make it bitter, but they may start to eat small quantities if the
| rest of the grazing is poor. They may even pick at it when there
| is grass available - I have seen that happen. So horses shouldn't
| be in fields containing ragwort (or vice versa), otherwise they
| could become poisoned.

Or perhaps they shouldn't be kept in the same field until there is
nothing else to eat?

I agree, it's bad management.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, picking at
ragwort will not poison them - it's only making it a primary part of
their diet.

Do you have a cite for that? What proportion of the diet would have
to be ragwort to make it "a primary part"? My understanding is that
a diet containing only 5% of ragwort is toxic, and that clinical
signs are evident at 10%.

If someone has a horse injured by eating ragwort-contaminated hay,
it is obviously possible to sue the supplier. Is anything else
REALLY necessary to restrict this incredibly minor problem?

Education of horse owners would be the most effective action.

Francis

For goodness sake.

How did horses and donkeys managed to survive, in the days before
lovey-dovey horse owners, if they were constantly eating poisonous
plants.

"crazyhorse" wrote in message
ups.com...

How did horses and donkeys managed to survive, in the days before
lovey-dovey horse owners, if they were constantly eating poisonous
plants.

The ones which were susceptible to poisoning did not evolve into what we
know now.

Those we have now can tolerate it.

Mary

In article ,
(Francis Burton) writes:
|
| As has been repeatedly pointed out, picking at
| ragwort will not poison them - it's only making it a primary part of
| their diet.
|
| Do you have a cite for that? What proportion of the diet would have
| to be ragwort to make it "a primary part"? My understanding is that
| a diet containing only 5% of ragwort is toxic, and that clinical
| signs are evident at 10%.

Well, either the references in http://www.ragwortfacts.com or your
figures would do. 5% IS a primary part of a diet - you don't get
that by picking at foods!

Many of the foods we eat are toxic at MUCH lower levels than that,
but we eat those only as flavourings. If you chase up how many
common herbs and spices are toxic in large quantities, you might
be surprised.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"crazyhorse" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 11 Aug, 15:17, (Francis Burton) wrote:
In article ,

Nick Maclaren wrote:
| Horses do indeed avoid eating live ragwort because the alkaloids
| make it bitter, but they may start to eat small quantities if the
| rest of the grazing is poor. They may even pick at it when there
| is grass available - I have seen that happen. So horses shouldn't
| be in fields containing ragwort (or vice versa), otherwise they
| could become poisoned.

Or perhaps they shouldn't be kept in the same field until there is
nothing else to eat?

I agree, it's bad management.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, picking at
ragwort will not poison them - it's only making it a primary part of
their diet.

Do you have a cite for that? What proportion of the diet would have
to be ragwort to make it "a primary part"? My understanding is that
a diet containing only 5% of ragwort is toxic, and that clinical
signs are evident at 10%.

If someone has a horse injured by eating ragwort-contaminated hay,
it is obviously possible to sue the supplier. Is anything else
REALLY necessary to restrict this incredibly minor problem?

Education of horse owners would be the most effective action.

Francis

For goodness sake.

How did horses and donkeys managed to survive, in the days before
lovey-dovey horse owners, if they were constantly eating poisonous
plants.



They were not in stables being fed contaminated hay!

As far as I am concerned it remains a problem for horse owners and their
feed suppliers to sort out, Ragwort is a wild plant designed to survive
here, and its a bit like trying to stop the tide coming in to try and curb
it. If hay suppliers got sued for supplying ragwort in hay then they would
soon make sure there were no plants in their fields before harvest.

--
Charlie, Gardening in Cornwall
http://www.roselandhouse.co.uk
Holders of National collections of Clematis viticella
and Lapageria rosea cultivars

In article ,
Nick Maclaren wrote:
| Do you have a cite for that? What proportion of the diet would have
| to be ragwort to make it "a primary part"? My understanding is that
| a diet containing only 5% of ragwort is toxic, and that clinical
| signs are evident at 10%.

Well, either the references in http://www.ragwortfacts.com or your
figures would do. 5% IS a primary part of a diet - you don't get
that by picking at foods!

Fair enough.

I believe there is a minor factual error on the Ragwort: Facts
and Myths site (http://www.ragwort.jakobskruiskruid.com/)

"Q: Is it true there are several hundreds of victims each year?
A: The exact number of victims of Ragwort poisoning is unknown.
The symptoms of Ragwort poisoning cannot be distinguished from
other liver disorders and poisoning can only be confirmed by
means of a post-mortem liver exam. These exams are, however, not
common practice, and reliable data on the number of victims are
therefore not available. There could be more than hundreds of
victims, but there could also be much fewer."

Actually liver biopsies on a live animals are fairly straight-
forward and don't need a general anaesthetic.

Many of the foods we eat are toxic at MUCH lower levels than that,
but we eat those only as flavourings. If you chase up how many
common herbs and spices are toxic in large quantities, you might
be surprised.

Nutmeg is well known. It doesn't surprise me that there are
others.

Francis

In article ,
(Francis Burton) writes:
|
| I believe there is a minor factual error on the Ragwort: Facts
| and Myths site (http://www.ragwort.jakobskruiskruid.com/)

I pointed out one in http://www.ragwortfacts.com :-)

| Actually liver biopsies on a live animals are fairly straight-
| forward and don't need a general anaesthetic.

Can it be told from a biopsy or does it need an inspection of the
liver?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Nick Maclaren wrote:
| Actually liver biopsies on a live animals are fairly straight-
| forward and don't need a general anaesthetic.

Can it be told from a biopsy or does it need an inspection of the
liver?

Afaik, microscopic examination of a small piece of liver.

Francis

On 11 Aug, 09:48, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
In article " writes:

|
| The hysteria has spread to Holland too.

Yes, some people get positively horseterical. They use to have the
same reaction to yew, which is more poisonous but little or no more
dangerous, even to horses.

I notice one common myth perpetrated byhttp://www.ragwortfacts.com,
though:

It is OK to uproot ragwort where ever you see it

FALSE. It is illegal to uproot any wild plant if you are not
authorised by the owner or occupier of the land on which it grows
See Ragwort is sometimes protected.

It is not. Only plants in Schedule 8 are, and only Fen Ragwort is
included there.


You are wrong Nick. We have had this discussion before . You don't
like this particular law.
Neither do I either. BUT As it quotes on the link on the website. The
Wildlife and Countryside Act makes it illegal for you to destroy or
uproot ANY wild plant if you are not the owner,occupier or a person
authorised by them.

See the other thread. The rules for Schedule 8 are different






Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 16:04:57 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"crazyhorse" wrote in message
oups.com...

How did horses and donkeys managed to survive, in the days before
lovey-dovey horse owners, if they were constantly eating poisonous
plants.

The ones which were susceptible to poisoning did not evolve into what we
know now.

Those we have now can tolerate it.

Mary

What evidence do you have to back this up please?

On 11 Aug, 21:18, judith wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 16:04:57 +0100, "Mary Fisher"

wrote:

"crazyhorse" wrote in message
oups.com...

How did horses and donkeys managed to survive, in the days before
lovey-dovey horse owners, if they were constantly eating poisonous
plants.

The ones which were susceptible to poisoning did not evolve into what we
know now.

Those we have now can tolerate it.

Mary

What evidence do you have to back this up please?


150 years of mainstream biological science.

It was first postulated by one of the people who was voted one of the
greatest Britons in history a few years ago, a certain Charles Darwin.
You'ee find his picture on the ten pound notes we all carry in our
pockets here in the UK.

Animals who behave in a way that makes them die earlier leave fewer
descendants. All animals resemble their parents.
The traits that lead to survival increase because those possesing them
have more descendants, eventually the bad traits are eliminated from
the population.

This is like asking what evidence do you have to say the earth is
round not flat!

Sorry if this sounds sarcastic but it is REALLY FRUSTRATING!

Neil Jones

http://www.butterflyguy.com/

In article .com,
" writes:
|
| You are wrong Nick. We have had this discussion before . You don't
| like this particular law.
| Neither do I either. BUT As it quotes on the link on the website. The
| Wildlife and Countryside Act makes it illegal for you to destroy or
| uproot ANY wild plant if you are not the owner,occupier or a person
| authorised by them.
|
| See the other thread. The rules for Schedule 8 are different

Yes and no. I had forgotten the revolting details. We are BOTH wrong,
unless there has been an amendment. I have just checked the Act,
assuming that the following is a true copy :-)

http://www.jncc.gov.uk/PDF/waca1981_part1.pdf

What is illegal for any plant is to uproot it (13(b)). That's all.
It is not an offence to pick or destroy it, as it is for Schedule 8
plants (13(a)).


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article .com,
" writes:
| On 11 Aug, 21:18, judith wrote:
| On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 16:04:57 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
|
| How did horses and donkeys managed to survive, in the days before
| lovey-dovey horse owners, if they were constantly eating poisonous
| plants.
|
| The ones which were susceptible to poisoning did not evolve into what we
| know now.
|
| Those we have now can tolerate it.
|
| What evidence do you have to back this up please?
|
| 150 years of mainstream biological science.
|
| . . .
|
| This is like asking what evidence do you have to say the earth is
| round not flat!
|
| Sorry if this sounds sarcastic but it is REALLY FRUSTRATING!

Calm down. That is the principle. It is reasonable to ask what
evidence there is that horses and donkeys have adapted to eating or
avoiding ragwort. And the answer is that there is some, though it
is not definitive - I saw a reference saying that 'native UK' strains
were more resistant than other ones.

The 'natural' areas of such equines and ragwort are not the same,
though they overlap. One of the many causes of death of temperate
animals imported into tropical zones is that they often eat lethally
poisonous plants, because they neither avoid them totally nor have
any resistance.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 11 Aug, 15:32, crazyhorse wrote:
How did horses and donkeys managed to survive, in the days before
lovey-dovey horse owners, if they were constantly eating poisonous
plants.

Well, for a start, in the absence of agriculture, Ragwort would have
occurred intermittently. When we manage a field and then stop doing
so species like Thistle and Ragwort can become very invasive, in
unnaturally high concentrations.

Then, also, wild Horses had access to a wide range of foodstuffs,
naturally occurring. And their range was limited to an ecosystem that
allowed them to survive winter (or summer drought, for that matter).
I would not be surprised if that natural range did not include very
much of the natural range of Ragwort. Domestic horses depend on a
very narrow number of food species, those which we can succesfully
mass produce and store for the winter. Contamination of that stock
can be very serious for the horses.

Oh, and by and large - they didn't survive.
Have a look at a phylogenetic tree for species hippus. The vast
majority of types have died out before humans joined in. (http://
talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html#part2, for example) .
Horses are astonishingly difficult to keep alive for many reasons, not
just diet.

Domestic horses are selectively bred descendents of things like
Przewalski's horse. That, although threatened by habitat
desctruction, is a much more rugged animal than our own fine-boned and
skittish derivatives. I have no evidence, but would not be at all
surprised if the toxic effects of ragwort did not affect Przewalski's
anywhere near as badly