Friday 27 October 2023

Canterbury Horse Rescue Lousy Charity's Ragwort Nonsense!

In my honest opinion Canterbury Horse Rescue is an absolutely lousy charity. They have let an abusive, ignorant, arrogant and dim-witted individual to tweet on their behalf. This is clearly a clueless ignoramus who spreads environmentally damaging scare stories.

When someone is challenging you and provides links, then you need to examine the evidence. If you don’t understand it then don’t challenge it.

I’ll post the twitter thread below. This happened some time ago but I have recently been researching the central fact at issue, that there cannot be a  general definitive diagnosis of ragwort poisoning. This is because mouldy food such as hay can contain aflatoxins which have the same effect at an atomic level and therefore produce damage that is, "indistinguishable from ragwort”. That quote comes from a paper in one of the world’s finest scientific journals Nature. It was printed there only a few years after the paper which announced to the world that the structure of DNA had been discovered, leading to the Nobel Prize for its authors.

First of all Canterbury Horse Rescue posted a quote tweet replying to some one who had seen “introduced Silver Ragwort” growing wild somewhere as it occasionally does. This is Jacobaea maritima. This is a different species to the native (Common) Ragwort (Jacobaea vulgaris) so there are no laws mentioning it anyway! However the information they provided to their followers was nonsense even when applied to (Common) Ragwort.

First of all Canterbury Horse Rescue falsely claimed that the council had a duty to clear. No such duty to control for councils exists in the law for any species of ragwort. It also implies the plant is scary and dangerous because such a law is needed. This is misleading.

Then they said you must wear gloves when handling it. This is a repetition of a well-known scare story and myth. It was looked at by some Dutch scientists some years ago who concluded it was nonsense. This is also misleading.

Then they said it was dangerous to pets. There is a standard veterinary text book on plants toxic to cats and dogs. Ragwort isn’t even mentioned! So this is a misleading scare story yet again!

In general the rule is that if an equine organisation says anything negative about ragwort then it will be misleading in some way or another, but Canterbury Horse Rescue really take the biscuit!

Despite being provided by Friends of the Earth’s briefing with detailed information and proper scientific references, this ignoramus ignored the evidence, which includes telling them that there is no reliable test for ragwort poisoning, and carried on arguing.

There are very clear rules placed on registered charities by the Charities Commission which have been utterly ignored by Canterbury Horse Rescue. They did not properly examine the evidence given to them.

Let’s look at their claims regarding Defra hat they said, and it's false by the way, that ragwort is our top killer.. The first thing to realise is as I have proved many times over the years Defra haven’t a clue about the subject. Just to give one example of their bungling ignorance. They once told everyone that ragwort, which is an ecologically important native plant, was on a list of dangerous foreign invaders!

As for using Defra as a source, the bungling ignoramus from Canterbury Horse Rescue had already been told via the Friends of the Earth briefing that there was no reliable test for ragwort poisoning so they needed evidence to show that was wrong. Argument from Authority is one of the biggest errors you can make in thinking.

As the famous American scientist Carl Sagan wrote in his book. The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

"Mistrust arguments from authority....  Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else."

Defra are often rather slow and reluctant in replying to Freedom of Information Requests and often don’t actually have the information that you’d expect them have to make some of their claims. They cannot prove their contentions.

Canterbury Horse Rescue probably didn’t ask, and certainly didn’t ask for proof when they’d already being given the requisite information by Friends of the Earth.

Defra are also currently lying about the law to people, with regards to ragwort. It is very easy to prove this as the law is written down in black and white and their information clearly misrepresents it. They claim if you follow their very badly researched advice you will avoid fines when what they fail to tell you is, a lie by omission that the law requires them first to tell you in a specific legal order to control it and then and you can only be fined if a court finds that you unreasonably refused to follow that order,

Some people do form their opinions on the basis of tradition and authority but it is important to know what the research says about such people, on average clinical tests show they are less intelligent!

The basis of the Canterbury Horse Rescue ignoramus's argument was not only wrong but possible evidence of a clinical mental issue!

Here is the actual thread of this discussion on twitter. The bad language used brings them into disrepute and wasn't justified.





The frustration here is it does indeed seem to be a demon haunted world and too many equine charities are talking nonsense on the basis of false information,

Here is my latest information proving there is no reliable test for ragwort poisoning, complete with references, including one to the Nature paper I mention above.

Ragwort poisoning no test can confirm ragwort poisoning 100% (ragwortfacts.com)

















Ragwort Hysteria latest entries

Tuesday 15 August 2023

Pembroke Council Ragwort bungling from an officer.

 One of the most important rules of logical thinking is, “don’t listen to authority look at the evidence.” Indeed there is abundant evidence in the medical literature that authoritarian behaviour is linked to poor ability and intelligence.

This is a classic example of a phenomenon I have noticed many times. Bureaucrats in local and even central government often don’t know their subjects well.

It  is a case from about a decade ago from Pembroke Council in Wales but it is still relevant today as the same issues happen. These are some quotes from an email concerning a developer who wanted, quite properly, to include ragwort in a nature area.

This starts with a falsehood.

2. The Council’s Landscape Officer comments: “It is strange to go to special levels to include Ragwort into the proposals when it is a notifiable weed elsewhere,

I don’t know what is precisely meant by “elsewhere,” but there has never, ever been such a thing as a notifiable weed in Wales or in the rest of Great Britain. There is no legal requirement for anyone to notify any authority of the presence of any plant.

Then there is more incorrect information!

and an offense [sic] to allow it to spread. So whilst the developer can include it, he will be obliged to remove it before it comes into seed.

This is nonsense! The law most emphatically, does not say that. You may be given a rare order to control ragwort but in the absence of an order there is no requirement to do anything at all.

I would suggest that we are aiming to set something up that is realistically impractical and may cause legal challenge if left un-managed. The Cinabar [sic] Moth is not a protected species but is an LBAP species and hence its suggested inclusion in the scheme.

The main issue with ragwort hysteria isn’t the Cinnabar Moth but all the other wildlife and the impact on the environment of the agricultural intensification created by the problem

There is more nonsense

However it is relatively common, and the plant itself is poisonous to humans although large quantities would have to be consumed to be lethal. However, inclusion in the scheme might lead to concern from more informed parents and I therefore question the overall wisdom of its inclusion in the play area.

Remember this is coming from a landscape officer someone who you might expect to know something about plants. Surely you would expect them to know that toxic plants are common in gardening, things like daffodils and bluebells. This is what truly informed parents should know. Yes there is a problem with ignoramuses and ragwort but that should be dealt with by educating them.

This sort of ignorance is by no means unusual from council officers. I actually started all this work when decades ago a council officer was determined that ragwort should be treated as an invasive species even though I impressed upon her that it was an ecologically important native. It got written into an official document afterwards that it was a foreign invader. It had to be complained about!

Another issue occurred years ago, when I was trying to conserve one of the best butterfly sites in the UK. A small 20 acre site in Wales with as many butterfly species as the entire English county of Essex! One of the tactics was to protect the trees. A council Tree Officer visited and tried to impress me with scientific names, only they were the wrong ones! Also he made one of the most ignorant statements I’ve ever heard from someone who should have understanding of ecology!

If it were to be ploughed up everything would come back because the seeds would still be in the ground.”

The moral of this story is don’t listen to officials, find out the rules for yourself and be particularly sceptical of council officers and their claims.









Ragwort Hysteria latest entries

Wednesday 19 July 2023

Cornwall Council's ragwort balderdash.

During a conversation on twitter some ill-informed person held up Cornwall Council as a useful source of information on ragwort.

Nothing could be further from the truth as evidence by this piece of ignorant balderdash in their Highway Maintenance Manual

C.8 Specialist inspection of noxious and invasive Weeds

The control of injurious and noxious weeds is a statutory responsibility for

authorities under the Weeds Act 1959 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

The primary objective of the specialist inspection is therefore to identify

areas of prescribed weeds that may be hazardous to users of the highway.

The prescribed weeds are:

Ragwort

Broad leaved dock

Curled dock

Creeping thistle

Spear thistle


First of all neither piece of legislation creates ANY statutory responsibility on local authorities. Then we get the nonsense that there has to be inspection to removed weed that may be hazardous to users of the highway. You can imagine it dock leaves causing car crashes by their mere presence on a verge! What utter nonsense! I suspect it is because they don't understand that Injurious weeds means harmful to the agriculture we had in 1920 when they were first written into the legislation governing Great Britain. They seem to  think that the term, "injurious weeds"  means that edible dock leaves are a danger to people and cause injury which is not the correct use of the word  injurious in this context.

Then there is the fact that none of these native plants is mentioned in the Wildlife and Countryside Act at all! The list there is of problematic foreign plants which are a problem and while there is a brief mention of Japanese Knotweed later on they don't cover these!

Some years ago Cornwall council was spending £100,000 a year on this kind of environmentally damaging control, which is a matter for concern and no doubt writing this sort of rubbish in documents helps the highway's department justify this.

The main message here is that local council officers very rarely know what they are talking about with regards to weeds so don't rely on them to inform yourselves!





 .



Ragwort Hysteria latest entries

Wednesday 14 June 2023

British Horse Society, Defra, Prof Derek knottenbelt laughing stock to scientists.

I recently returned from attending a scientific symposium in the English language in the Netherlands. It was a very very enjoyable experience. I was primarily there to listen and learn. There is always more to learn about this subject even after more than two decades of detailed study and it was fascinating

However, being British there were a few things I could help with during discussions. At one point one of the scientists put up on the screen a newspaper article in Dutch mentioning the old false story, from the British Horse Society, that 6,500 horses were dying a year in the UK of ragwort poisoning. As I have mentioned before I am learning Dutch and I have a bit knack for languages so I could read at least some of it.

During the question session after that talk I explained how this figure was calculated. They contacted many many equine vets, they didn't check to see if more than one vet in a practice responded so there may have been duplicate cases, they talked about confirmed cases when there isn't a test that can confirm them, and they got a tiny number of responses, just a handful in percentage terms without looking it up I think it was 4%..  Then they multiplied that figure as if everyone had answered! 

Of course I got a laugh! Professional scientists know how to treat data and this is obvious fakery. Yet this crooked and fraudulent science has informed public and political opinion.

There was a discussion session at the end and DEFRA the government department  that covers part of the UK came up. So I explained, "DEFRA get their risk statistics from the man who said it (ragwort) is poisoning the Cinnabar Moth."

It got another laugh! Of course, it is nonsense but the man who said it has been influencing government.

Ragwort is the main foodplant of the moth and as we had been told earlier in a fascinating talk it needs the alkaloids in the plant for the adult moth to find the plant and lay its eggs and for the caterpillars to be stimulated to eat! 

As I have said before Professor Derek Knottenbelt is the person behind this story and it is beyond ludicrous. It is nuttier than squirrel droppings!. Here is the quote from a horse care book.

`I would not normally advocate the eradication of any species, but this one has nothing to offer. I don't accept that eradicating ragwort would eradicate the Cinnabar Moth, which feeds on it. Ragwort is burgeoning and the Cinnabar is declining. In fact, I believe it is being poisoned. The moth was common throughout the years that ragwort was rare and now that ragwort is widespread, Cinnabar Moths are difficult to find. If we care about the moth, we have to find out why its population is declining in the face of an ad lib supply of "feed'.

I have an entire section of my ragwort facts website devoted to this man's strange beliefs. I would direct people to start with this article  There are no fewer than SEVENTEEN false or suspect claims there. Yet he has been promoted by the anti-ragwort brigade as a world leading expert. 

https://www.ragwortfacts.com/professor-derek-knottenbelt-country-illustrated.html









Ragwort Hysteria latest entries

Wednesday 11 January 2023

What if a vet tells you its ragwort poisoning?

 I am entering my third decade of studying ragwort this year so I thought to make a new posting illustrating why I believe that people should not necessarily believe that a veterinary diagnosis of ragwort poisoning is a correct one and why I can prove that hysteria exists and that it plays a part in some of the poor diagnoses that we do see.

I have over 1200 followers on twitter and a number of them are academics working in ecological areas. There are several professors there. These are not people who have been fooled by poor science. The ragwort issue is bedevilled by falsehoods and even made up nonsense. I can and have solidly proved it. People with the requisite level of education can see this and listen to me as a result.

The first thing I would say is that nobody, no vet , nobody can be sure of ragwort poisoning.

I am prompted to write my honest opinions here, as I often am, by something that someone said on twitter about a vet being sure that a ragwort poisoning was likely.

No one can be sure after the poisoning has occurred unless they poisoned the animal themselves.  This is because there is no test that can distinguish it from poisonings by other substances. most notably toxins from invisible moulds in feed like hay.

The first point to make about this is that it isn't me who says this. It comes from several veterinary textbooks written by world renowned veterinary professors, who have said this on the basis of the evidence. It is vital to remember in science that it is the evidence that counts not who says it.  but I think we can be pretty sure that modern university level veterinary textbooks will be correct.

 I have gone further than this of course. I am not going to baffle the readers of this blog with a complex explanation of what the biochemistry says, but in essence, it says that the compounds concerned have the same effect because they react with DNA molecules in the same way causing the same effects at a submicroscopic level. We know this to be true not from the authority of experts but from the much better authority of the biochemical evidence. 

You can read more on my website here, https://www.ragwortfacts.com/ragwort-poisoning-no-test-can-confirm-ragwort-poisoning.html

I have actually gathered more sources and more information, which I have yet to add to that page.

The other interesting point is that I didn't discover this initially for myself, My first port of call all that time ago was of course veterinary text books. I didn't discover this because in wasn't in the text books that I read at that time. It may be this that stops vets taking it into account as it seems they weren't trained to look for it. It is we know a more modern discovery. It was the case that at one time that  it was believed that Pyrrolizidine Alkaloids the toxic chemicals present in ragwort had a definitive microscopic test but  even this was only first published in the literature in the 1950s. I found out about this because a colleague attended a meeting where a researcher and veterinary professor was speaking and asked him if there was anything else which produced those signs and was told there was.. I then gathered information from the scientific literature to explain this.

I don't blog often but it is worth reading my previous entry here from last summer where I go into a bit more detail about this and describe an encounter with an equine vet who just did not know the subject thoroughly at all and is likely as a result misdiagnosing cases. Equine vet gets it wrong on ragwort. 

I will however restate a quote I made there from the latest scientific research which shows that ragwort poisoning is not as common as has been believed.

"Outbreaks of hepatic disease are common and once often were suspected to be caused by pyrrolizidine alkaloid (PA) toxicosis, although more recent evidence suggests that PA toxicity is far less common than generally suspected."

Ragwort is often said to to be the cause without proper investigation anyway, even before investigation was possible.

One of the people who helps me with my research sent me an article from 1947 before we had the idea of microscopic examination confirming things, which subsequently was proved to be false anyway. It was  in an Irish newspaper. One farmer was suing another who had sold him a horse saying it was in good health when it wasn't. It died shortly afterwards from what the article calls "Cirhosis of the Liver", which is a reasonable description I suppose.

The vet who had made the diagnosis was asked by the judge. "What is the predisposing cause?"

and the vet was reported as responding.

"In some places it is put down to ragwort poisoning. Mouldy hay often cases it. Ragwort is usually put down for it."

This is still happening. There are all sorts of cases being reported in the media. One Equine charity started using four letter insults to me on Twitter when I told them you cannot diagnose ragwort poisoning from blood tests. It is pretty obvious that this abusive and ignorant person had been led to believe that falsehood by a vet as they insisted they had veterinary reports.

Equine charities have played a part in this as I document frequently here. I am going to be blunt and honest about it, but my opinions are based on a detailed study of the evidence.  The British Horse Society published an inflammatory article scaring people with a false story about a vet turning up and diagnosing ragwort poisoning on the spot without tests! What is more they used it to persuade people to fill in one of their infamous surveys. I'll say it clearly this is another example where the British Horse Society have used crooked methods to rig surveys or present their arguments in a false way.

If you want to survey people honestly you must not make leading statements which will bias the results. So giving people false information which overstated the risk from ragwort biased the results. The first question in the survey also made a false exaggerated claim of toxicity of the plant.

I keep saying this I know but this blog entry is going to new people I hope. The video below is from the excellent BBC comedy, Yes Prime Minister where  the infamously scheming Sir Humphrey Appleby explains exactly how you rig a survey using leading questions. 

This is exactly what the British Horse Society did! Of course it is a different subject but they rigged it in exactly the same way, with leading questions that shape the opinions of the person answering.


There is also a problem with  Defra who are claiming on their website that following advice will help you avoid fines under the Weeds Act, whilst lying by omission. The omission is that you cannot just be fined for not following their advice. You have to be ordered to something by a rare legal order and only then can you be fined and only then can you be fined if you don't comply.

The you have their Code of Practice declared, "out of date" and withdrawn legally some years ago  but still offered as advice . It is based on a bizarre and crazy use of risk statistics from a notorious source who claims that an animal that uses ragwort as its near exclusive food source is being poisoned by it and that animals won't  be affected by having their habitat destroyed!  See https://ragwortfacts.com/defra-ragwort-code-of-practice.html










Ragwort Hysteria latest entries

Saturday 20 August 2022

Equine vet gets it wrong on ragwort.

 Today I am once again going to talk about my honest opinions on ragwort. It includes an example of a discussion where an equine vet got things wrong on ragwort. This happened on Facebook earlier in the week and I have given her enough time to respond so I think I should now share this encounter so that you can all see the problem.

As regular readers will know it isn't the first time there has been an issue with what an equine vet has said. I do wonder if they are taught all I would expect them to be taught. 

The issue in question here is whether you can diagnose ragwort poisoning with certainty. My view on this is, after having read the literature,  you cannot. It is quite simple really. There are characteristic symptoms of damage which can be observed under a microscope, but while those symptoms are characteristic of pyrrolizidine alkaloid poisoning caused by the toxins in ragwort, that is not their only cause. Another cause is damage by toxins produced in invisibly mouldy hay.

Since you have more than one cause it is surely not possible to say that the damage is caused by one of them.

Although it doesn't seem to be the problem in this specific case there is also the issue of vets doing blood tests which are just indicative of liver damage from any of a number of causes.  I got four letter insults from one equine charity which insisted that veterinary blood test results proved ragwort poisoning on twitter.

Naturally as a specialist on ragwort I do keep up on the latest scientific literature if I can and there is a paper published just last month that contains some interesting quotes.

"Outbreaks of hepatic disease are common and once often were suspected to be caused by pyrrolizidine alkaloid (PA) toxicosis, although more recent evidence suggests that PA toxicity is far less common than generally suspected."

 Pyrrolizine alkaloid toxicosis is what happens in ragwort poisoning so the recent evidence suggests it is far less common than had been assumed. I've explained the exaggerations and nonsense statistics in previous postings.

 "We found that mycotoxins were present in >80% of hay samples fed to horses in the United Kingdom."

Now not all of them were the kind of mycotoxins that might be confused with ragwort poisoning on biopsy but we do know as I said above that this is assumed without biopsies.

"Interestingly, although not a specific finding, scattered individual hepatocyte necrosis and apoptosis are the most common histopathologic features in liver biopsy specimens collected from horses involved in outbreaks of liver disease in the United Kingdom." 

This is very significant because we can be sure what ever the cause that this shows that most cases are not ragwort poisoning, something which had been in print previously, but confirmed again here. 

Well, here is the conversation on Facebook. The quotes given are not the only source of information that I have to confirm this.  In case you're wondering my responses were in paragraphs. There is a way to do this on Facebook postings where normally pressing enter creates a posting, causing postings to be rather unclear.

Harriet Kate Fairhurst
Patrick Anthony Thirkell
unfortunately, as an equine vet, I personally put to sleep 3 horses last year due to ragwort ingestion, causing irreversible damage to the liver. ingestion of ragwort causes Pyrrolizidine alkaloid toxicity, the alkaloids in toxic plants (such as ragwort) cause a primary toxic effect on liver parenchyma, leading to enlargement of liver cells, leading to impairment of cell division, resulting in large bits of the liver then being unable to function, ultimately leading to hepatic failure and death. There are many plants which cause it, however ragwort is the main perpetrator.

Bill Ellson
Harriet Kate Fairhurst
How do you distinguish between liver failure caused by ragwort and liver failure caused by mycotoxins?

Harriet Kate Fairhurst
Bill Ellso
n ragwort poisoning specifically causes changes in liver cells termed megakaryocytes. On histology slides of a liver biopsy, these are very specific for ragwort poisoning.

Bill Ellson
Harriet Kate Fairhurst
Really? Any peer reviewed science that supports that assertion

Neil Jones
Harriet Kate Fairhurst
I honestly believe you are wrong.
First of all I think you'll find that megakaryocytes are bone cells responsible for
creating the platelets in blood.
I think you mean megalocytosis. Bill Ellson asked how you tell ragwort poisoning from poisoning by mycotoxins. Aflatoxins are mycotoxins and produce the same characteristic microscopic changes,
Indeed we know from the biochemistry why this happens and why they cannot be distinguished.
If more than one cause exists for an effect, then you cannot surely describe the effect as due to just one of those causes
A few excerpts from the literature:
"Hepatic megalocytosis can be observed in some aged animals, but is characteristic lesion observed in toxic insult by pyrrolizidine alkaloids and aflatoxins. " From Veterinary Toxicology Basic and Clinical Principles
"Hepatic megalocytosis is observed with certain toxic insults, particularly pyrrolizidine alkaloid toxicosis and aflatoxin toxicosis. " from Clinical Veterinary Toxicology.


 

 

 


Ragwort Hysteria latest entries

Thursday 18 August 2022

Scientific Chinese Whispers over Ragwort

 All the time I see assumptions made about ragwort that my detailed study over the years shows to be wrong. People say things based on their prejudices that they assume to be true and I know they are not.

Frequently ragwort haters will say I lack authority in some way or other. You must go to peer reviewed papers, even when actually that research shows I am right. The authoritarian mind has been shown to be poor at thinking and there's good research behind that.  Thinking that authority is  the best source is also one of the biggest errors you can make in science. As  Nobel Prize winning physicist Professor Richard Feynman summed it all up in a famous quote made during one of his lectures, which was recorded on film for posterity.

"If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't matter how beautiful the guess is. It doesn't matter how smart you are. Who made the guess . What his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. That is all there is to it."

He was talking about the derivation of knowledge about the laws of physics but the principle applies to all of science.  Experiment or evidence is the key not who said something or where it was written etc. I have here a classic example of why peer review does not necessarily assure validity.

Doing my research I came across a statement in a peer reviewed paper illustrating exactly why evidence is preferred over authority. It was saying something I had read a vet saying, that seedlings are eaten by animals and cause poisoning. Now I know, from detailed reading of the literature that small doses do not matter so this is not likely to be true and without evidence it shouldn't be accepted. There is even a published experiment where animals were fed lower doses of the type of toxins that are in ragwort and suffered no damage where as higher doses did cause damage. This is exactly what the biochemistry predicts.

As for challenging vets when I am not one. Again this is a matter of evidence not authority. I would guess that I know a lot more than the average vet does about this specialised subject area. I've seen what the textbooks do and don't say and as we know I regularly criticise a veterinary professor for talking nonsense, with really good evidence. I may have more to blog about this issue of vets getting things wrong in the near future.

Now what is a seedling? Well in my mind, as a native speaker of English, a seedling is something an inch or two high,  a new plant that has just begun growing from a seed. It is perhaps a lack of proper appreciation of that meaning that caused this particular myth to start. For as you'll see the origin of this myth has nothing to do with anything that could reasonably be called a seedling.

The first paper in the chain is this Epidemiology of intoxication of domestic animals by plants in Europe by Cristina Cortinovis, Francesca Caloni .which says:-

"Poisoning generally occurs when seedlings are grazed accidentally along with other forage or when there is a lack of other feed (Vandenbroucke et al., 2010)"

So the next thing is to follow that reference and it leads to Animal poisonings in Belgium: a review of the past decade by V. Vandenbroucke et al.

This says something rather different it talks about a lack of other feed, and isn't the primary source.

"Although herbivores seldom eat mature plants, poisoning can still occur when seedlings are grazed accidentally along with other forage or when there
is a lack of other feed (Polhmann et al., 2005)"

So this leads us on to what is the final source. It does not provide evidence just what is really the opinion of the author, but also a rather weird definition of seedling.

"Fortunately, herbivores seldom eat mature plants (Fig. 1), but poisoning can occur when seedlings (Fig. 2) are grazed accidentally along with other forage or when there is a lack of other feed." 

But just look at the pictures in the figures. They are below. These aren't seedlings but half-grown plants at the end of the first of their two years of life!  Through being repeated a false assumption has become stated as fact, as it appears a paper's author didn't check the primary source for validity. I have seen a video of a horse deliberately avoiding a plant like that.

 



 




Ragwort Hysteria latest entries