In article , Simon Avery
writes
Kay Easton wrote:

Hello Kay

It's illegal to allow it to grow on your land.
KE Are you sure of that? Can you refer me to the Act which
KE covers that, since I've not been able to find it?

See previous message - it's the Weed Act, published on the web by
Defra.

The consultation document on the DEFRA site on the code of practice for
the control of ragwort states specifically that 'The Act does not make
it an offence to grow injurious weeds on land'

The Weed Act gives DEFRA a permissive power to take action to control
the spread of ragwort to neighbouring land.

(Most county bylaws
specifically mention ragwort as a notifiable weed.)
KE Notifiable to who?

Defra - they've even got an online form for reporting it.

I couldn't find that, either. All I could find was an on-line form for
reporting that your neighbour was allowing it to spread on to your land.

Are you saying that if I find ragwort in my lawn, I am required to
report it to DEFRA? Because that is simply not true.

The Ragwort Control Act 2003 proposes that 'relevant landowners' (ie not
everybody) should remove ragwort from their land and should report the
current ragwort status of their land, but I am not sure of the current
status of this Bill, whether it has yet been passed or not.

--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

Nick Maclaren wrote:

In article ,
(Neil Jones) writes:
|
| I am a little confused about this. I have read in relatively
| respectable locations that the plant spreading along verges etc.
| is normally Oxford ragwort, and that the population of common
| ragwort is fairly stable.
|
| Is that so, and what is the species that normally invades badly
| managed pastures? Whether they are different makes a LOT of
| difference to the methods of control!
|
| The evidence from the published atlas data on Common Ragwort shows
| that it is not changing in distribution, despite what the media claim.
|
| Oxford Ragwort is a plant of waste places, railway tracks, etc. It is
| very rare to see it growing in a field.

Thanks. Then what I heard was correct, and there is little point
in worrying overmuch about Oxford ragwort. The days when stock
were driven slowly and for long distances along roads are long
gone in the UK.

They wouldn't eat it anyway so even if there were animals on the
verges it wouldn't be a problem. The problem would/might be if seeds
from the roadside infestation started it colonising meadows used for
making hay.

--
Chris Green )

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
m...

[snip]

It is hard not to respond to this sort of stuff without getting
sarcastic.
The plant is not toxic enough to cause problems for humans. FULL STOP.
No doubt because of all the hysterical talk councils who know nothing
of the research tell their workers to put gloves on. If handling
Ragwort is dangerous then so is feeding tomato plants, lifting
potatoes, growing poppies and a hundred and one other garden
activities. All those plants contain toxic alkaloids.
Saying that smokers are at risk from handling ragwort really takes the
biscuit!
They are killing themselves with every puff they take of that stuff
anyway.

You are wrong about groundsel not containing the same toxins.

It is also quite wrong to say that the Cinnabar moth can survive on
groundsel.
Yes, the caterpillars can eat it, but that is not the whole story.
If you look at its eggs they lay in batches and therefore do much
better on larger plants. I know there is a website saying what you say
but it is WRONG.

Also for reasons to do with biological factors such as "Metapopulation
dynamics" the ecology of Groundsel with it being a short persisance
annual do not make it a suitable host to sustain the moth populations.
I won't bore everyone with the details and I can't post all the
differential equations anyway but this is absolutely clear from the
science.

Where does the felty stemmed, grey leaved, shrubby Senecio (compactus?) fit
into the story? Should it be handled with some care?

Franz

(Neil Jones) wrote:

Hello Neil

Replied via email since this thread seems to be getting some folks a
tad uppity.

--
Simon Avery, Dartmoor, UK Ý http://www.digdilem.org/

Kay Easton wrote:

Hello Kay

It's illegal to allow it to grow on your land.
KE Are you sure of that? Can you refer me to the Act which
KE covers that, since I've not been able to find it?

See previous message - it's the Weed Act, published on the web by
Defra.

(Most county bylaws
specifically mention ragwort as a notifiable weed.)
KE Notifiable to who?

Defra - they've even got an online form for reporting it.

--
Simon Avery, Dartmoor, UK Ý http://www.digdilem.org/

wrote:

Hello

for an equine charity) I loathe it more than most. It's
also poisonous to humans, if you pick or handle it without
gloves, it'll get into your system (after causing burns on
sensitive skins) and leads to progressive liver failure.
u Do you have evidence for this as when we enquired of DEFRA
u about it they said that as far as they knew it was harmless
u to touch and pull it. I'm pretty sure it has to be ingested
u to do harm.

They're wrong-ish, and every council now requires its workers to wear
gloves when pulling it. I have noticed irritation to my own hands when
pulling it, but can't say whether that was purely the ragwort or
something else. Can't find anything on the web about it being an
irritant.

You're right, though - it does need to be ingested (AFAIK), but what's
on peoples hands tends to end up in their mouth, with smokers, nose
pickers, sweat-wipers. (Same reason you're not supposed to smoke when
applying pesticides, because your hand goes to your mouth)

Possibly not in sufficient quantities to cause damage, but I'll let
somebody else find that out.

Btw, regarding the cinnibar moths. Far from being restricted to only
being able to feed on Ragwort, they're also quite happy munching on
other senecio species such as groundsel, which is possibly more
widespread than ragwort and doesn't cause the same risks to livestock.

--
Simon Avery, Dartmoor, UK Ý http://www.digdilem.org/

wrote:

Hello

[Wondering off gardening here, sorry]

u I believe also that ponies in paticular, if they are really
u hungry, will start eating ragwort and become so accustomed
u to the taste that they almost like it. Animals *do* die
u from eating ragwort but I don;t believe that it's a huge
u number and I do believe that there are probably exceptional
u circumstances.

You know who I work for, I think? (In my sig in the other place)

We've had about half a dozen to a dozen horses in over the past ten
years with severe problems that were caused by ragwort. (Not just
trusting our own vet, we sent one to the Bristol equine hospital who
confirmed that ragwort was the probable cause) All of them have now
died.

Maybe I am beating this drum a little too hard, but it's kinda
difficult to remain dispassionate about a weed when you've tried to
nurse several horses through what is an incredibly painful and
debilitating illness. If you've ever seen an animal's eyes when
they're near death (same with people), you know they look right
through you, and fail to register anything outside their own world of
pain. I've seen that too many times not to get upset when people say
that ragwort isn't dangerous.

u There is also a risk in the long term of course as the the
u liver damage suffered is cumulative, it may be pretty
u unilkely to eat 20% of ones (horse) body weight of ragwort
u in a season but it's much less
u unlikely over ten or fiteen years for an animal kept in
u permanently ragwort infested fields.

The thing about that sort of test is that it could be that the test
involved seeing whether the horse was still standing at the end of it.
Since it /is/ cumulative, did this horse live to its normal life
expectancy?

Horses do eat their own bodyweight quite often, though. Most
herbivores do, especially those eating low-nutrient plants like grass.
And a horse eats more than a cow since it's less efficient at
filtering out the goodness. (Only one stomach...) Not got the figures
handy, but iirc ragwort wouldn't need to be /that/ high a percentage
of the feed in order to reach 20% in a season.

Anyway, that's me last post on this. Like the ragwort, it's gotten a
bit out of hand...

--
Simon Avery, Dartmoor, UK Ý http://www.digdilem.org/

The Cinnabar is a Tiger moth.. just not THE Tiger moth.

Just as well really, that would really frighten the horses.

Janet

LOL, I like that :-)))
kate

Kay Easton wrote in message ...
In article , Simon Avery
writes
Kay Easton wrote:

Hello Kay

It's illegal to allow it to grow on your land.
KE Are you sure of that? Can you refer me to the Act which
KE covers that, since I've not been able to find it?

See previous message - it's the Weed Act, published
on the web by Defra.


-Which, as Kay says below, empowers the Min of Ag the
to require a landowner to control ragwort (& a few other
'injurious' weeds) on his land. That's not quite the same as it being
illegal to have ragwort on your land.

The consultation document on the DEFRA site on the code of practice for
the control of ragwort states specifically that 'The Act does not make
it an offence to grow injurious weeds on land'

The Weed Act gives DEFRA a permissive power to take action to control
the spread of ragwort to neighbouring land.

(Most county bylaws
specifically mention ragwort as a notifiable weed.)
KE Notifiable to who?

Defra - they've even got an online form for reporting it.

I couldn't find that, either. All I could find was an on-line form for
reporting that your neighbour was allowing it to spread on to your land.

Are you saying that if I find ragwort in my lawn, I am required to
report it to DEFRA? Because that is simply not true.

The Ragwort Control Act 2003 proposes that 'relevant landowners' (ie not
everybody) should remove ragwort from their land and should report the
current ragwort status of their land, but I am not sure of the current
status of this Bill, whether it has yet been passed or not.

Defra triumph again. What's the point of publishing some
of the legislative mountain if it's not clear whether it's in force
or not?


An interesting point is that the Weeds act seems to have been
specifically for dealing with agricultural land, and that
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/weedsact/guidance.htm
says that if land is used only for grazing of horses and ponies
(which don't count as agricultural use) & is subject to spread
of ragwort from surrounding areas, then the Min of Ag will not
intervene, and your only option is to take out civil action.

It certainly is a pernicious problem where it gets a foothold-
the hay from my little field is used for horses, so it needs to
be ragwort-free. Despite sheep grazing it (which was the
traditional solution, I believe), two or three times a year, and
hand-roguing (?sp) when it's in flower for a number of years,
the benighted stuff still pops up.

--
Anton

"anton" wrote in message
...


SNIP



It certainly is a pernicious problem where it gets a foothold-
the hay from my little field is used for horses, so it needs to
be ragwort-free. Despite sheep grazing it (which was the
traditional solution, I believe)

Sheep were used as they were slaughtered long before the liver dysfunction
became apparent

, two or three times a year, and
hand-roguing (?sp) when it's in flower for a number of years,
the benighted stuff still pops up.


As the old countrymans saying goes "one years seeds gives ten years weeds"


--
Please note antispam measures - do not hit reply
Horse sense is what horses have that makes them not bet on people - W.C.
Fields

Regards,
John

Stephen Howard wrote in message . ..
On 18 Aug 2003 21:32:46 GMT, wrote:

The Cinnabar is a Tiger moth.. just not THE Tiger moth.

In my Richard South the 'classic' tiger moths are of genus Arctia whereas
the Cinnabar moth is in a genus by itself, Hypocrita. In appearance
it's closer to the Footman moths than the Tiger moths in my opinion.
Also the classic Tiger moth caterpillars are 'wooolly bears' and the
Cinnabar moth caterpillar is nothing like them.

How old is that book then? Or have they changed all the bloody names
round again!!? They keep doing this with the fungi, you know.


The original edition dates from 1907. There is a revised edition from
1961.
Yes, it isn't the most modern of books, but it is a standard work.
Indeed, for most of the last century it was THE standard work. Most
keen lepidopterists will have a copy. I have both editions. There is
a newer work by Skinner which has better plates for identification but
doesn't give much detail on each species like the two volumes of
South.




However I will concede that the Cinnabar Moth is quite closely related
to the Tiger Moths.

Does that mean I win?? Drinks are on me!!

Damn, I think I got that wrong...

Regards,

--
Neil Jones- http://www.butterflyguy.com/
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn
Bog National Nature Reserve

In message , anton
writes

Defra triumph again. What's the point of publishing some
of the legislative mountain if it's not clear whether it's in force
or not?

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/weedsact/default.htm
quote:
24 July 2003: A public consultation on a Draft code of practice to
prevent and control the spread of ragwort has been launched. Comments
should be received by 26 September 2003.

--
Robert

In article , Robert writes
In message , anton
writes

Defra triumph again. What's the point of publishing some
of the legislative mountain if it's not clear whether it's in force
or not?

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/weedsact/default.htm
quote:
24 July 2003: A public consultation on a Draft code of practice to
prevent and control the spread of ragwort has been launched. Comments
should be received by 26 September 2003.

That's a draft code of practice - I don't think that's the same as the
'Ragwort Bill' which is published on the parliament site.
--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

In message , Kay Easton
writes
In article , Robert writes
In message , anton
writes

Defra triumph again. What's the point of publishing some
of the legislative mountain if it's not clear whether it's in force
or not?

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/weedsact/default.htm
quote:
24 July 2003: A public consultation on a Draft code of practice to
prevent and control the spread of ragwort has been launched. Comments
should be received by 26 September 2003.

That's a draft code of practice - I don't think that's the same as the
'Ragwort Bill' which is published on the parliament site.

Follow the links and it refers to the Private Members Bill that you have
been looking for information on. The consultation letter mentions the
current status of the Bill - 'The Bill successfully completed Report
Stage and Third Reading Debate in the House of Commons on Friday, 11
July, and is due to be considered by the House of Lords after the summer
recess.' If the Bill is adopted it looks as though the code of practice
is to be a part of it.
--
Robert

anton wrote:

It certainly is a pernicious problem where it gets a foothold-
the hay from my little field is used for horses, so it needs to
be ragwort-free. Despite sheep grazing it (which was the
traditional solution, I believe), two or three times a year, and
hand-roguing (?sp) when it's in flower for a number of years,
the benighted stuff still pops up.

It'll almost certainly keep 'popping up' until there's enough growth
of grass and other ground cover to suppress the ragwort. There's
probably ragwort seed in the ground from years of misuse/overgrazing
and that seed will remain viable for several years. Thus pulling it
up and/or removing it before it seeds will prevent current growth but
it will take a *long* time to stop reappaering.

--
Chris Green )