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.

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.

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. (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.

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).

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.

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. "

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

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.

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.

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. (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.

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).

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.

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. "

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

Nice post - I think that should shut them up....

billy_bunter wrote:
[big snip]

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

Nice post - I think that should shut them up....

While having considerable sympathy with the OPs comments, I don't
really understand what you mean by "I think that should shut them up".
The original Ragwort thread was actually quite wide ranging and
interesting and I really didn't see much 'hysteria' in it. There
*are* places where you will find what might be called hysteria about
the effects of ragwort but I don't really believe that the thread
being referred to was OTT in any particular way. (Maybe the original
post was but it soon developed into quite a sesible discussion)

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

--
Chris Green )

billy_bunter wrote:
[big snip]

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

Nice post - I think that should shut them up....

While having considerable sympathy with the OPs comments, I don't
really understand what you mean by "I think that should shut them up".
The original Ragwort thread was actually quite wide ranging and
interesting and I really didn't see much 'hysteria' in it. There
*are* places where you will find what might be called hysteria about
the effects of ragwort but I don't really believe that the thread
being referred to was OTT in any particular way. (Maybe the original
post was but it soon developed into quite a sesible discussion)

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

--
Chris Green )

"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.

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.

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. (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.

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).

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.

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. "

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

Thanks for injecting a little realism into the picture.

Franz

snip
being referred to was OTT in any particular way. (Maybe the original
post was but it soon developed into quite a sesible discussion)

There was no hysteria in the original post - mine - nor was it OTT,just
a simple comment about ragwort.

a very level headed non hysterical kate

In article , Kate Morgan writes:
| snip
| being referred to was OTT in any particular way. (Maybe the original
| post was but it soon developed into quite a sesible discussion)
|
| There was no hysteria in the original post - mine - nor was it OTT,just
| a simple comment about ragwort.
|
| a very level headed non hysterical kate

Hmm. While I agree that the tone wasn't hysterical, I am afraid that
the spin was. To quote it:

Please would you all check your lawns for ragwort, I know it is a time
consuming job but it is a bad year for the nasty weed. I have some small
amounts in my paddock but I have never had it on my lawn before.
I have lost one horse this year - not thro ragwort - and I dont want to
lose another so I say again please check every where

Well, firstly, any ragweed in mown lawns isn't likely to seed.

Secondly, you refer to it as a "nasty weed" and say "check
everywhere". That contains a STRONG implication that you want
people to ELIMINATE it from their gardens.

It wasn't a simple comment - you were asking people to take
action.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"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.

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.

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. (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.

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).

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.

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. "

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

Thanks for injecting a little realism into the picture.

Franz

snip
being referred to was OTT in any particular way. (Maybe the original
post was but it soon developed into quite a sesible discussion)

There was no hysteria in the original post - mine - nor was it OTT,just
a simple comment about ragwort.

a very level headed non hysterical kate

In article , Kate Morgan writes:
| snip
| being referred to was OTT in any particular way. (Maybe the original
| post was but it soon developed into quite a sesible discussion)
|
| There was no hysteria in the original post - mine - nor was it OTT,just
| a simple comment about ragwort.
|
| a very level headed non hysterical kate

Hmm. While I agree that the tone wasn't hysterical, I am afraid that
the spin was. To quote it:

Please would you all check your lawns for ragwort, I know it is a time
consuming job but it is a bad year for the nasty weed. I have some small
amounts in my paddock but I have never had it on my lawn before.
I have lost one horse this year - not thro ragwort - and I dont want to
lose another so I say again please check every where

Well, firstly, any ragweed in mown lawns isn't likely to seed.

Secondly, you refer to it as a "nasty weed" and say "check
everywhere". That contains a STRONG implication that you want
people to ELIMINATE it from their gardens.

It wasn't a simple comment - you were asking people to take
action.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"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.

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.

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. (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.

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).

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.

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. "

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

Thanks for injecting a little realism into the picture.

Franz

snip
being referred to was OTT in any particular way. (Maybe the original
post was but it soon developed into quite a sesible discussion)

There was no hysteria in the original post - mine - nor was it OTT,just
a simple comment about ragwort.

a very level headed non hysterical kate

In article , Kate Morgan writes:
| snip
| being referred to was OTT in any particular way. (Maybe the original
| post was but it soon developed into quite a sesible discussion)
|
| There was no hysteria in the original post - mine - nor was it OTT,just
| a simple comment about ragwort.
|
| a very level headed non hysterical kate

Hmm. While I agree that the tone wasn't hysterical, I am afraid that
the spin was. To quote it:

Please would you all check your lawns for ragwort, I know it is a time
consuming job but it is a bad year for the nasty weed. I have some small
amounts in my paddock but I have never had it on my lawn before.
I have lost one horse this year - not thro ragwort - and I dont want to
lose another so I say again please check every where

Well, firstly, any ragweed in mown lawns isn't likely to seed.

Secondly, you refer to it as a "nasty weed" and say "check
everywhere". That contains a STRONG implication that you want
people to ELIMINATE it from their gardens.

It wasn't a simple comment - you were asking people to take
action.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

snip
Secondly, you refer to it as a "nasty weed" and say "check
everywhere". That contains a STRONG implication that you want
people to ELIMINATE it from their gardens.

It wasn't a simple comment - you were asking people to take
action.

So what is wrong with that, it was a request.People dont have to do it
if they dont want to and I did not shout.
kate

snip
Secondly, you refer to it as a "nasty weed" and say "check
everywhere". That contains a STRONG implication that you want
people to ELIMINATE it from their gardens.

It wasn't a simple comment - you were asking people to take
action.

So what is wrong with that, it was a request.People dont have to do it
if they dont want to and I did not shout.
kate