billy_bunter wrote:

(... and please snip when you add a one line comment in response to a
multi-line post)

I will post how and where I like, thank you very much.

Absolutely, I've no problem with that, it was just a polite request to
make life easier for those reading your posts. If you don't want to
snip then so be it but being sociable by trimming does make reading
newsgroups a more pleasant experience.

--
Chris Green )

Rusty Hinge wrote:
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:
"Tim Challenger" "timothy(dot)challenger(at)apk(dot)at" wrote in message
s.com...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 10:26:14 +0100, Rusty Hinge wrote:

[snip all]

Is there anyone left who thinks there is still some meat to be had in this
thread, or can we all just let it die a death by now?

I suppose we could all emulate Socrates with a draught of ragwort....

But he did it with hemlock, you'd need a hell of a lot more than a
'draught' of ragwort to have the same effect and it would take a much
longer time too.

--
Chris Green )

Cerumen wrote:

"Rusty Hinge" wrote in message
...
Yet the story has spread. It has appeared in at least two _Government_
press releases and as even been copied by the BBC.

But who believes Government press releases, especially about weeds of
mass destruction?

Or even about the mass destruction of weeds? Anyway somebody leaves a
horse run free and it breaks into my land and eats the ragwort or indeed
nibbles on the Yew, foxgloves, belladonna or any other toxic plants and
trees they get what they deserve?

The issue is more that when ragwort produces seed that seed travels
over a huge area and there are tens of thousands of viable ragwort
seeds produced by a single plant. If you're ragwort was guaranteed not
to spread beyond your garden owners of grazing animals wouldn't be so
worried about it.

--
Chris Green )

Mike Lyle wrote:

It was suggested that the ragworts didn't colonise well-stocked
grassland, but I'm afraid they do, round here at any rate. How else do
they appear in lawns?

They appear in lawns, in my experience anyway, when the lawn is
getting a bit bare in dry weather. At least that's when the ragwort
establishes itself.

Ragwort in lawns is a total non-problem assuming it's not allowed to
flower which seems unlikely unless the lawn is really neglected! :-)

On our land it does actually appear on the lawn more often than in the
longer grassed (but fairly well maintained) orchard. I think this is
because the lawn is closer to overgrazed (and thus bare) pasture than
the rather grassy orchard.


The cinnabar moth won't be preserved by half a dozen plants in some
gardener's back hedge anyhow.

It certainly won't be preserved by plants on a lawn, the caterpillars
wouldn't find enough to eat and would probably get trodden on.

We do actually leave ragwort plants which are well infested with
cinnabar moth caterpillars on our land in spite of having horses. The
caterpillars prevent the plants from seeding and to my mind provide a
continuing biological control of the ragwort population.

--
Chris Green )

Cerumen wrote:

My real point was just that really, any garden or land in general will
contain a large number of plants which are toxic to animals and/or humans
but we are not encouraged to destroy them. Brugmansia and Gloriosa are not
native however whereas those examples I gave are.

As I said elsewhere in this thread I think the issue with ragwort is
the number of seeds that a single ragwort plant can produce and the
distance they can travel. A single plant in your garden can produce
enough seed to infest an adjacent field quite quickly. This is not so
true of most other poisonous plants (though I don't know about the
specific ones mentioned).

The other problem is its insidiousness, the major risk is that of
making hay from a pasture infested with ragwort and then that hay
getting sold to unknowing animal owners. The animals may not be
seriously affected by the poison until several years later.

The risk is not, generally, of animals eating live ragwort whether or
not it's on their owner's land, someone's garden or a road verge.

--
Chris Green )

The message
from martin contains these words:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 20:46:59 +0100, Rusty Hinge
wrote:
The message
from billy_bunter contains these words:

I will post how and where I like, thank you very much.

Be ready to take the flak then.

It's inconsiderate, lazy, annoying and if the window is filled with
quoted text and no comment/reply, many of us just delete the whole post
unread.

It's maybe better to ignore and not argue with him.

Oh, I don't know, he may inhabit a group which habitually top-posts. I
expect he goes into kosher restaurants and asks for ham with cheese
sauce thobut.

--
Rusty http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm
horrid·squeak snailything zetnet·co·uk exchange d.p. with p to
reply.

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

It started out all right. I learnt from it. However, it became boringly
repetitive as time went on.

It's fine if you have a pair of tweezers handy for extracting the minutiae.

--
Rusty http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm
horrid·squeak snailything zetnet·co·uk exchange d.p. with p to
reply.

Now you are jusr being childish :-)

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"David W.E. Roberts" wrote in message
...

Franz,

as has already been mentioned.

'Me too' posts with the entire original article are the bane of
newsgroups.

It doesn't take much effort to edit.

In this instance it was a positive decision on my part not to snip, for
the
reasons I gave in another post.

By the way, you forgot to indicate that you snipped.

Franz

"Rusty Hinge" wrote in message
...
snip
Oh, I don't know, he may inhabit a group which habitually top-posts. I
expect he goes into kosher restaurants and asks for ham with cheese
sauce thobut.

Not so funny when you actually do it - wandered into a butchers in Liverpool
years ago because I fancied a pork chop and didn't see the 'Kosher Butcher'
sign outside.

Ended up covered in embarrassment and clutching a Kosher lamb chop.

Ears red, me?
Dave R

said...:

billy_bunter wrote:

(... and please snip when you add a one line comment in response to a
multi-line post)

I will post how and where I like, thank you very much.

Absolutely, I've no problem with that, it was just a polite request to
make life easier for those reading your posts. If you don't want to
snip then so be it but being sociable by trimming does make reading
newsgroups a more pleasant experience.

I realise that now. It simply amazes me that there are now many more posts
about netiquette on this thread than the actual subject of concern. My
reply was not meant to offend, simply to assert my usenet right to post as
and where I please. I will now bow to the overwhelming group pressure and
restrict myself to minimalism in future. I failed to realise the hysteria
and derision that I would create with just 12 words. I apologise.

wrote in message ...
Cerumen wrote:

"Rusty Hinge" wrote in message
...
Yet the story has spread. It has appeared in at least two _Government_
press releases and as even been copied by the BBC.

But who believes Government press releases, especially about weeds of
mass destruction?

Or even about the mass destruction of weeds? Anyway somebody leaves a
horse run free and it breaks into my land and eats the ragwort or indeed
nibbles on the Yew, foxgloves, belladonna or any other toxic plants and
trees they get what they deserve?

The issue is more that when ragwort produces seed that seed travels
over a huge area and there are tens of thousands of viable ragwort
seeds produced by a single plant. If you're ragwort was guaranteed not
to spread beyond your garden owners of grazing animals wouldn't be so
worried about it.

Actually many many plants produce seeds like this. On average in the
long term one plant will produce only one offspring.

Several studes have been carried out on ragwort. The most
comprehensive was carried out by scientists at Oregon State University
and published by The Ecological Society of America in their respected
scientific journal Ecology. It showed that, when tested in a variety
of conditions, 31% of the seeds traveled only 1 metre, 89% of them 5
metres or less and none were collected more than 14 metres from the
source. The study involved studying the dispersal of over fifty three
thousand individual seeds.


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

Neil Jones wrote:
The issue is more that when ragwort produces seed that seed travels
over a huge area and there are tens of thousands of viable ragwort
seeds produced by a single plant. If you're ragwort was guaranteed not
to spread beyond your garden owners of grazing animals wouldn't be so
worried about it.

Actually many many plants produce seeds like this. On average in the
long term one plant will produce only one offspring.

Statistically that's bit on the obvious side really isn't it! However
it's not to say that if you have a plant growing in an area that is
'good' for ragwort then you'll only get one plant grwoing the next
year.


Several studes have been carried out on ragwort. The most
comprehensive was carried out by scientists at Oregon State University
and published by The Ecological Society of America in their respected
scientific journal Ecology. It showed that, when tested in a variety
of conditions, 31% of the seeds traveled only 1 metre, 89% of them 5
metres or less and none were collected more than 14 metres from the
source. The study involved studying the dispersal of over fifty three
thousand individual seeds.

It'll still colonise a pretty wide area in not many years if left to
itself then. The other problem is that once you've 'had' it then
there are seeds on your land which remain viable for a long time.

As I've said before the real 'cure' on grazing land is to maintain it
well so that it's not very hospitable to ragwort. That's becoming a
bit difficult this year because it's so dry though and our pasture is
beginning to look much too bare to be 'ragwort proof'.

Thanks for all your input, it's interesting and useful. While I am a
horse owner and have land which does have a bit of a ragwort problem I
do think there's a fair amount of over reaction to it in the horse
world.

--
Chris Green )

"Cerumen" wrote in :


"Rusty Hinge" wrote in message
...
Yet the story has spread. It has appeared in at least two _Government_
press releases and as even been copied by the BBC.

But who believes Government press releases, especially about weeds of
mass destruction?

Or even about the mass destruction of weeds? Anyway somebody leaves a
horse run free and it breaks into my land and eats the ragwort or indeed
nibbles on the Yew, foxgloves, belladonna or any other toxic plants and
trees they get what they deserve?

The field opposite my garden contains horses (x2), and ragwort (x many).

I have always previously made an effort to pull ragwort in my gardens
before it flowered.

But now I'm assuming that if the horse-owners were bothered, they'd make
some effort to remove the ragwort that is actually on their land.

This year I have decided to leave it for the caterpillars. One less job.

Victoria

What do you mean? Is this a serious complaint? Please explain without any
cockiness

wrote:
billy_bunter wrote:

(... and please snip when you add a one line comment in response
to a multi-line post)

I will post how and where I like, thank you very much.

Absolutely, I've no problem with that, it was just a polite request
to make life easier for those reading your posts. If you don't want
to snip then so be it but being sociable by trimming does make
reading newsgroups a more pleasant experience.

--
Chris Green )

Robert The Devil's Advocate www.pafc.co.uk

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
om...
I am sorry about those who object to people starting new threads but
If my news service is anything to go by things are getting muddled and
lost.
This is an important point and much environmental damage can be done
and public money wasted as well us unnecessay worry caused.

Yes. As a scientist who has extensively studied the subject,I believe
that "hysteria" is the correct word to use. It is of course
understandable that people should have a concern for their precious
animals but there is little rational need for extreme concern and it
is hard to avoid the conclusion that people are being manipulated.
Certainly there will have been no harm done to certain organisations'
public profile. On the balance of the scientific eveidence there is
little cause for people to remove it from their lawns. Indeed there is
a good basis for leaving it alone.

On the basis that the rosette stage does not bear flowers and ultimately
seeds your assertation is just about acceptable however a "good" lawn will
consist of grasses and hopefully be clear of broad leaf weeds so regardless
of your sympathies for Ragwort I suggest its removal can never come into
the area of leaving it alone being a good thing.


There are certain researched facts that well support the contention
that this is hysteria. First of all there is the level of toxicity of
the plant. This is actually quite low. The toxic dose for a large
animal is in the order of several stone. This has been determined by
experimentation and one horse is known to have eaten over 20% of its
body weight of the plant and survived!. Of course horses eat a lot but
this puts the level of toxicity into context. This is not cyanide we
are taking about but a mildly toxic plant.

Which contains an alkoid poison demonstrated to cause liver damage. Even if
a toxic dose requires a lot of digestion a small sustained dose does cause
liver damage leading to many deaths being commonly ascribed to liver
failure rather than Ragwort poisoning. A horse managing to eat a large
amount of Ragwort and survive may still be far from healthy and even though
alive, suffering from advanced liver failure.


Now to the hysteria. The following is just one example of many. One
equine magazine on the net published a story that horses could be
poisoned by "seeds and Spores" (sic) blowing into pasture that they
would breathe in. On the basis of the level of toxicity this is
absolute nonsense.

Unfortunately the press can and do make some pretty glaring errors in their
attempts to sell copy. This should not be considered as the norm just
stupidity and disregarded. I confess I haven't seen this particular bit of
reporting but no doubt you can tell us the name of the particular magazine
and its publication date?

(Even if you ignore the inaccurate botany.)
Yet the story has spread. It has appeared in at least two _Government_
press releases and as even been copied by the BBC. It is hardly
suprising therefore that many people have a false picture of the real
story about his plant.

Most folks I speak to don't have much of a picture at all about it and
think it is some kind of decorative daisy. They are genuinly surprised that
it is poisonous when told.


We are told that thousands of animals are poisoned by it every year.
However, what do the scientific data say? Well, there is apparently
only one set of official statistics available. These official
Government statistics were published in the official State Veterinary
Journal.
Here they a

The number of reported incidents of ragwort (Senecio jacobaea)
poisoning in cattle in England, Wales and Scotland were 26 (1985), 10
(1986), 16 (1987), 13 (1988), 7 (1989), 10 (1990).

This is typical statistics (as compared to the lies, damned lies and
statistics of quote) As previously said the number of deaths attributable
to direct poisoning is limited but as most cattle and sheep are
comparatively short lived (those raised for meat are slaughtered at an
early age) the cumulative effects of Ragwort poisoning are extremely likely
to be overlooked as the damage has not become established to any
significant degree to enable it to be detected post mortem.

Hardly the picture we have been led to believe and incidentally this
is supported by scientific papers from the continent which say
poisoning is rare.

I could go on with the false stories about it being a risk to people
etc. etc.

You are extremely confident in your stance - perhaps you would volunteer to
consume some Ragwort in an experiment to determine your assertation? I
should add that I certainly would not!

However, let's just remember that Ragwort has some positive qualities
too. For those who missed what I said in the long thread.
This is one of the things that one of our official government wildlife
bodies says.

"As a native plant ragwort has been studied for many years by
naturalists. Even way back in 1957 a report concluded that it is eaten
by, or is host to, over 81 species of insects including five "red data
book" and eight "nationally scarce" species. Living on those 81
species there have been a further 25 parasitic insect species
identified. In addition there have been 177 species of insects
observed using ragwort as a nectar source. It has also been observed
as host to the Common Broomrape and 14 species of fungi. "

The concept of Senecio Jacobea being a Native plant is interesting since it
has been reported that it is an imported plant which was brought into Kew
Gardens for study and then planted along Railway embankments by the
Victorian Railway Companies to provide their passengers with some
interesting colourful shrubbery to look at as they journeyed, at the same
time the roots binding the material it grew in to stabilise the banks.
Certainly if this is true then the idea that Cinnabar moths rely upon
Ragwort as a source of food is a fallacy since they must have lived on
something else before its introduction, likewise the other 80 odd species
mentioned above.

Over the last few years there has been an explosion of the stuff along
roadside verges, spreading into adjacent fields. In my opinion this is due
to the expansion of the highways network which almost invariably results in
wide swathes of land being compulsorily purchased to build new roads but
after building, leaving bare roadside land which is fenced off from the
surrounding agricultural areas and hence uncultivated or cared for,
conditions such as this are almost perfect for weeds to establish. The
various highways agencies carry out very limited mowing of this land often
restricting their work to a metre wide strips adjoining the paved areas and
the remaining areas become more overgrown and weed infested, an expanding,
thriving weed population becomes the inevitable result. In my locality we
have recently had a few days of wind, resulting in a steady airborne drift
of thistledown rolling right across my paddocks some hundreds of metres
from the source plants. Amongst this there must have been at least some
Ragwort seeds since there are plants growing along the verges where the
thistles grow and their distribution is by the same mechanical means. I
carry out a continuous programme of eradication but any relaxation is
rapidly rewarded by establishment of seedlings.

To see more of the myths debunked you can visit :-
http://www.ragwortfacts.com/

I visited the site and was somewhat unimpressed since the content was
mostly at significant variance with the results from a Google search for
Ragwort. Perhaps your site is written by a less objective author? It would
be helpful if the author was identified on the site.



--
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