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.

 

 

Redwings - Biologically ignorant ragwort nonsense

 I haven't blogged so much recently but this is such a good example for me to express my honest opinions on, that I'm no going to miss the chance.

Redwings is a horse charity and they have form for ragwort hysteria. Some years ago a leaflet they did was banned by the Advertising Standards Authority for scaring people with inaccurate scary information.

The latest piece of nonsense from them that I want to talk about here is this.

"The number of ragwort plants in the UK currently increases by a huge percentage each year. This is not surprising when you consider that each ragwort plant can produce between 4,760 and 150,000 seeds. Each seed has a 70% chance of germinating. The seeds can also survive dormant in the soil for up to 20 years."

Where do you start with this kind of nonsense!

There is no  evidence to support the notion that ragwort is increasing by a huge percentage The last available data shows a decline and equine charities at the time were claiming the same huge increases.

The justification is biologically ignorant rubbish! It does not matter how many seeds a plant produces or what the laboratory germination rate is as each plant produces on average just one offspring and creates the seeds necessary to do that. Surely anyone with any sense can see that? 

This germination rate is passed around to scare people. Stop for a moment and think, don't most plants germinate like that? I've just planted some alfalfa and clover in small pots, because I'll be wanting them as foodplant for caterpillars next year and will need to move them in and out of cages and to see the caterpillars clearly. I counted the seeds out and individually planted each one and they have all germinated. This is normal.

The earth weighs 5.972 × 10^24 kg that is nearly 6000000000000000000000000 kilograms. Let's assume that each ragwort plant produces 3332 offspring which is 70% of the lower figure they give for seed production to allow for the claimed germination rate. Put this into a calculator press the times key twice and keep pressing the equals key. After just seven generations the weight of ragwort plants exceeds the weight of the earth!

The argument being made is absurd, yet we know that some people will believe it adding more to the destruction of the environment unnecessarily.

And where do Redwings get their inspiration from. Well, regular readers will not be surprised to see them saying this:-

"Vet Derek Knottenbelt at Leverhulme Veterinary Hospital in Liverpool is a leading figure in the campaign to take ragwort and its devastating effects seriously. He is at the forefront of research into developing a reliable test to link liver damage specifically to ragwort toxins, which at the moment is impossible to distinguish from other causes of liver disease in the living animal. If you ever have the chance to see Derek Knottenbelt speak on the subject, don't miss it! "

Oh dear, oh dear, him again!  For new readers, this is the man who claimed ragwort was a serious problem in South Africa, where in fact it has never been recorded. He also claimed it was increasing when it was decreasing and also that it is responsibly for the decline in the cinnabar moth, because it was poisoning it! Bonkers or what! It is the natural food plant of the moth!!!

We have a good idea of what he says in his talks because of an article he wrote and here is my debunk of of what he said. I identify 17 issues of scientific problems with the article! It is rubbish from beginning to end!

He is retired by the way and the test was the subject of a PhD thesis by a student. It essentially didn't show anything our of 91 horses with liver problems suspected to be ragwort, only 1, an obvious abuse case showed positive results. The test has never been rolled out. It wasn't viable. Yet of course Redwings use it to make this man look good.

They are of course in violation of Charity Commission rules once again!

 

 

Bracknell Forest Council's ragwort misinformation harms conservation.

 I can't tweet all of this so once again I'm using the blog as an addition to social media. 

Conservationists are unhappy with them. I'll use a couple of analogies. Imagine they said Climate Change was a hoax. Climate campaigners wouldn't be happy. Imagine if they said the Covid pandemic was a hoax, the medical profession would be condemning them. Well, this blog is an expert in an area of science also telling them not to spread nonsensical myths.

Bracknell Forest Council have put a piece on line with myths about ragwort.

The first thing to remember that Bracknell Forest Council has a legal responsibility to promote biodiversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

The second thing to say is that they have no general legal responsibilities to control ragwort CONTRARY to what they are saying.

The third thing is that it isn't about the cinnabar moth. It is about all the other widlife affected.

"They don't seem to be very well informed because they say:-

“While ragwort has some biodiversity benefits, there are many other wildflowers in our meadows, that provide food for insects."

Imagine an art gallery saying we can burn our Van Gogh because we have a lot of other paintings, this is rather analogous. Ragwort is one of the most ecologically important wildflowers, yes there are circumstances where it needs controling but  they are damaging the environment by spreading myths about it.

This is what Friends of the Earth say about it in their briefing on the subject (Yes a major environmental organisation has a briefing on it. which exposes just some of the hystercal myths.)

 Ragwort (was Senecio jacobaea now Jacobaea vulgaris) is an important wildflower for invertebrate wildlife:

- 35 insect species totally rely on Common ragwort for food including 7 moth and 7 beetle species;

- Another 83 species are recorded as using Common ragwort often as a significant food source, with a further estimated 50 species of parasite in turn feeding on those;

- In addition to these 133 species, Common ragwort is a significant source of nectar for others including bee species that specialise in feeding on yellow Asteraceae (daisies) and many species of butterfly.1

- Government research shows that of over 7,000 plant species in Britain Common ragwort is the 7thmost important nectar-producing plant.

Now they are  breaching their NERC Act duty by spreading falsehoods about this ecologically important art of our natural heritage.

The first thing they get wrong is a matter of liguistic and environmental literacy.

They say:-

"Ragwort is classed as a harmful, or injurious weed under the Weeds Act 1959. This is because the plant can be poisonous to certain animals if eaten."

No this is not true. The word injurious doesn't mean it will poison something. The 1959 act wasn't debated in Parliament but as a Consolidation Act it repeated stuff originally pased in 1920. It is clear from Hansard at the time that the meaning is injurious to land not to animals. There are other plants listed, also ecologically valuable, and these are all listed in Richard Mabey's famous book Food for Free. You can eat them!

Then while talking about the law they say:-

"The occupier of land is responsible for clearing harmful weeds, such as ragwort, where they might spread onto land used for grazing livestock or growing crops.""

Regular readers will be hearing a claxon in their heads at this for this is like climate or Covid denial. It is a nonsensical falsehood.

This is all the law says that makes anyone do anything.

"Where the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (in this Act referred to as “the Minister”) is satisfied that there are injurious weeds to which this Act applies growing upon any land he may serve upon the occupier of the land a notice in writing requiring him, within the time specified in the notice, to take such action as may be necessary to prevent the weeds from spreading."

So to be clear. You may be ordered to control the plant but in the absence of the law there is no need to do anything. There is no responsibility at all placed on anyeone by the law to control these plants where they might spread. None whatsoever!

Then they go on with this scary stuff as if ragwort is some kind of triffid.

"We dispose of the waste responsibly, to ensure there’s no risk of spread by seed dispersal. Each plant can produce thousands of seeds, which are dispersed by wind. The seeds can remain dormant in the soil for several years."

This makes it sound really dangerous now there are . as a result of the hysteria, rules about disposing ragwort, but it is really unethical for ecologists to make a big deal out of them, because it should be obvious to anyone who understands the plant that they are based on hysteria.

Guess how far the best study says seeds travel from the parent plant?  It says that hardly any seeds travel more than 40 yards! 

There is a simple bit of science that I would hope is still in GCSE physics.  You can tell how far away the seeds would fall in general like this.  Work out how long it takes a seed to fall to the ground and then work out how far a wind would blow the seed sideways in that time. It is a classical example of plotting motion separate the vertical and horizontal components and calculate. Do this and you'll find seeds don't usually move far. Having said that there are going to be exceptional events but given the plant is a native these not particularly significant. 

This isn't big complicated science. It the stuff children do in exams at 16!

.Also there is the basic ecology! Why mention thousands of seeds? This is normal for so many plants and on average only one plant will grow from all of them. It it were not so than we'd quickly be buried under the weight of plants. It does however make the plant look scary.

They have been distributing frightening and false information which undermines conservation on-line to maybe thousands of people. This is not acceptable!

To twitter. This site is being blocked.

( Note I was first made aware of this by flag waving, seemingy far right bigotted ragwort basher. So I suspected they were involved. It transpired subsequently that there was a general problem effecting other blogs too.)

 Dear Twitter, I am just about to report to you that this site is being blocked on twitter.  I cannot tweet links to it. There has been a hysterical campaign against the plant ragwort, which is the subject of a campaign of misinformation. It annoys some libelous cranks that I debunk this stuff on this blog. They have probably reported me. look at my previous entries. I could probably name the accounts doing it. Perhaps they should be suspended for misuse?

If you have any doubts about me look at the number of academics who follow me @ragwortfacts on twitter or ask Matt Shardlow CEO of the Environmental Organisation Buglife.

Here is a sample.

Paul R. Ehrlich is particularly notable as a world-famous professor.

BBC Farming Today a ragwort falsehood and a fool

Once again I am blogging my honest opinions on ragwort and people spreading hysteria. Today is Christmas day, which I am spending with my family but I actually wrote almost all of this some days ago. I've been a bit under the weather for a few days. Nothing serious, as we all feel the need to say these days, but I was a bit  feverish for a while after my booster vaccination. This is worth getting despite that and I urge you all to get vaccinated.

Just in case you haven't encountered me before I work with conservation organisations debunking the nonsense over ragwort, not just because the plant is one of our most ecologically important in its own right but the unwarrented fuss and hysteria has deleterious effects on all grassland conservtion. A while ago before this dreaded plague came to dominate the lives of everyone I was at a conservation event and a very senior and highly respected conservationist introduced me to someone as "Britain;s leading expert on the ragwort issue."

 Some months ago there were two episodes of BBC Farming Today that covered ragwort. The first featured a load of nonsense from an equine charity. It was the usual nonsense.  Unsurprisingly there were complaints about it. This led to the first piece of bias. In the past they have used Matt Shardlow CEO of  Buglife who will not hesitate to debunk the nonsense. Instead, they used an academic in response to the propagandist who , it seems was unaware of the nature of the propaganda.

Over the years there have been a lot of problems with the media generally repeating nonsense. The BBC is a problem, and they will at all costs it seems avoid ever conceding, despite the evidence, that they got things wrong.

One of the issues is a lack of scientific literacy and critical thinking. The British Horse Society will publish one of their rigged surveys drawing a silly conclusion and the BBC will repeat it. Getting them to admit they got it wrong is hard. On this occasion I think anyone reasonable will think they have been caught out at lying.

It involves a clueless person, a member of the public who stubbornly refused to admit she was wrong despite being told so with good evidence.

One of the basic problems here is that she lacks what the scientists who study it call metacognition, this is a scientists word and very typically half Greek and half Latin but it is really quite easy to understand. It means thinking about thinking or knowing about knowing. She lacks the ability to know how to know if something is correct.

She sent this tweet to the BBC.

    Horsey Lady

@carolynhutchin8

26 Aug

@BBCFarmingToday

Fuming listening to all the talk about ragwort being important for bio diversity. It’s lethal to mammals causing a slow death through liver failure and isn’t even a native plant. It was brought to this country by the Victorians. I take great pleasure killing it.

 

This is just appalling bigotry. It isn't even correct! As anyone who knows their botany knows ragwort is native to the UK.

 

How would you know this to be true? Well, there are rules of thinking that people with good metacognitive skills can use. You can look it up in a book or ask an expert. These are effectively the same thing, if the book is written by an expert. How do we know that the person is an expert?. Well we have to be a little careful here because even if the person is a professor, as I've shown, a professor can say the craziest things if they go outside their field, but how about a professor of plant taxonomy who is an expert botanist? Surely that is exactly the person to ask. One such person is a  Professor Clive Stace, a man in his eighties who used to be Professor of Plant Taxonomy at Leicester University. You don't need to ask him personally because he has written a book. It is called New Flora of the British Isles, but it is known to botanists as "Stace". It is the botanists' bible. As its own blurb correctly says,

 

"Since its first publication in 1991, New Flora of the British Isles has become established as the standard work on the identification of the wild vascular plants of the British Isles."

 

Stace of course says that ragwort is native.

 

The really shocking thing is that the BBC broadcast this extreme and inaccurate tweet on Farming Today!

 

 There is a video featuring the character Jonathan Pie which is relevant here. Pie  is a fictional political correspondent created and portrayed by English actor and comedian Tom Walker. He appears in a series of comedic online videos in which he rants angrily about politics. His rants are staged to appear as if they are the reporter speaking off camera before or after he speaks for a live broadcast. In one of his videos Pie describes Twitter as a god send, journalism for toddlers. Instead of doing a vox pop in the street you put something on twitter and you can chose exactly what you want. It sounds awfully like this is what they did. 

 

What is worse is we know for certain that the BBC had been told it was wrong before they broadcast it! 

Saying that ragwort isn't native is a common myth, the BBC have said it before and I am ready to answer people with the relevant piece of Stace which is what I did. I replied to Carolyn Hutchins telling her and the BBC that she was wrong.

The foolish arrogance of Carolyn Hutchins is mid blowing. She is given an answer and told it is from the standard text, but it can't be right because, it seems, she is special and can't be wrong. This is confirmed by the abuse she poured out a lot of which I'm not going to repeat. It is really frustrating that she should then be broadcast.

Of course I complained to the BBC that they should correct this. They have been very reluctant to even acknowledge they were wrong.

The real issue here is not so much the erroneous view originating on twitter, but that it was given an airing on the radio. This is an entirely different platform which, having editorial guidance, seeks to have greater trust and credibility. A statement of fact, known to be wrong, was given an airing on national radio.

The bottom line here is there is incontrovertible proof that the programme broadcast a harmful untruth about one of our most ecologically valuable wildflowers and that they knew this to be incorrect. I know this because I told them so before the broadcast was aired, as we can all see.

 

Eventually, after a bit of persistent complaining I got a rather poor response from the BBC, They put a comment on a website saying "the plant is considered native". In fact there is no question at all that the plant is native.

There is just one thing to add. In one of her tweets Carolyn Hutchins cites as an expert that she listens to . This is, and regular readers will have no surprise, Professor Derek Knottenbelt. 

For anyone new to this blog, I have a section of my main website which debunks his claims. They range from the plain wrong or silly, to the abolutely bonkers. He claims the plant is a problem in South Africa for example, where the plant has never been recorded. For those who have not done so please see this page as an example. Professor Derek Knottenbelt Country Illustrated magazine (ragwortfacts.com) I take issue with SEVENTEEN of his claims, providing evidence and proper scientific references.

 

 

 

Owen Paterson ragwort nonsense.

 Owen Paterson is a British politician. He played a crucial role in spreading Ragwort hysteria in parliament as I will discuss below giving you all my honest opinions as usual.

He has been in the news lately because of his sleazy behaviour. He had been accused of breaking the rules on paid lobbying as an MP. There is no real question about this. Despite the fuss he made and his  claims of unfairness, he was obviously guilty.  This article in The Guardian explains it well. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/03/owen-paterson-his-claims-and-how-they-stack-up-in-analysis

Boris Johnson tried to change the rules.  There was a vote in parliament which he won narrowly, and then the opposition killed it, by refusing to take part in the new disciplinary process and Johnson had to back down.  Paterson then resigned.

Now we have to go back to 2000 when Paterson held a debate on ragwort and made a speech which was full of nonsense!

I'll give you some excerpts which I'll debunk.

 Ragwort is in fact a vile and highly poisonous weed, causing more damage to animals in this country than all other poisonous plants put together. 

How can he know this? There aren't statistics kept. In fact it has been shown that a lot of cases that might be labeled ragwort poisoning aren't. It is difficult to test for since toxins in mouldy feed have identical biochemical effects.

Seeds can lie dormant for 20 year

This is highly unlikely in most soils and even in the worst case over 90% of the seeds would be gone. It is normal for seeds to last in soil.

each plant can produce 150, 000 to 200, 000 seeds,

An advert quoting just the lower of these figures was banned by the Advertising Standards Authority. They are of course false exaggerations.

which travel in the wind for miles. 

The best study shows that seeds travelled hardly further than 40 yards. Of course exceptional events may occur but this is a common plant so they are insignificant.

These seeds land with a 70 per cent. germination rate.

WRONG! That is what happens in the laboratory it is not what happens in the wild. On average each of these native plants produces one offspring. If this figure were true that would mean in a few generations the offspring  of one plant would equal the weight of the earth.

Then he quotes Derek Knottenbelt, This is the man who claimed ragwort was poisoning the cinnabar moth, which actually requires it as a food, and that it was a serious problem in South Africa where the plant has actually never been recorded.

Finally, the risk to human health should not be underestimated. Dr. Knottenbelt said:

There is mounting evidence to suggest that ragwort is poisonous also to humans. The poison is almost certainly absorbed through skin. It is unknown whether it is safe to eat meat from animals that have eaten the plant but the alkaloid appears to remain stable in blood and organs.

I am baffled by this. It sounds complete nonsense to me. Everything I have seen in the literature says that the alkaloid is either destroyed quickly or excreted.  The idea that it is absorbes through the skin and is therefore dangerous was debunked years ago by some Dutch experts one of whom actually has a PhD on ragwort! It is known that it doesn't make meat poisonous.

This is a quote from a real expert. It is by by Dr Peter Cheeke of Animal Sciences Department Oregon State University a leading researcher into Ragwort. In the USA ragwort has become a problem because like many species released into a foreign ecology it is not controlled by its natural predators and diseases. This is not the case in the UK where it is a native and natural part of the ecosystem. He is speaking about sheep but the same applies to other animals and their meat. The biochemistry is clear.

The PA [ pyrrolizidine alkaloids] are not accumulated in the tissues; it is the damage that is cumulative. The damage is confined to the liver, which in an animal with ragwort toxicity would be shrunken and fibrotic. The carcass would likely be condemned because of the liver damage. In sheep which had consumed ragwort but did not show obvious liver damage, there would be no residues of PA in the meat. The PA are metabolized in the liver, and excreted as conjugates in the urine. Small amounts of pyrrole bound to DNA in the liver would not be measurable. Thus in my judgement there is no concern whatsoever about possible human toxicity from consumption of meat from sheep which had consumed ragwort.

I am not sorry that sleazy Mr Paterson is gone from parliament. 

 

New Forest National Park Authority Ragwort Nonsense.

 Firstly I should explain to my many foreign readers what the New Forest is and why it is so important. The first thing is it is neither new nor a forest in the modern sense of the word.

It was made into a new special royal hunting ground nearly a thousand years ago in around 1079 by King William I better known as William the Conqueror. This was the Duke of Normandy who invaded England in 1066 and defeated English King Harold Godwinson at the Battle of Hastings in 1066,a date that every British schoolchild is taught. In those days a forest was a royal hunting ground. Some is indeed covered in trees but there are large open areas too.

 According to Wikipedia,it is one of the largest tracts of unspoiled habitats in the UK. It is a 28,924.5-hectare (71,474-acre)  site containing biological and geological Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Several areas are Geological Conservation Review and Nature Conservation Review sites. It contains a Special Area of Conservation (Natura 2000 site), a Ramsar site and a Special Protection Area. In other words a real jewel in the crown of British habitats, an extremely important site.

I love the New Forest. I used to go on holiday there in my childhood. I have several memories of seeing scarce butterflies there. One of them I've never seen since. The glimpse I caught of it there is the only time. It annoys me that it is being damaged by clueless and foolish acts. So you are going to get my really honest opinions about this.

Damage is taking place on the site and the main people behind it are actually the New Forest National Park Authority, who are encouraging the damage both on their site and by disseminating incorrect information about the environment

They are damaging the habitat on the basis of ragwort hysteria, of course and a clear and obviously demonstrable falsehood.  Right at the beginning of their guidance is this absolute howler of an anti-conservation myth.

The ragwort control Act 2003 places a duty on landowners to control ragwort on their land.

It is simply not true. It is nonsense. It is wrong. It is a pile of horse manure.

Anyone competent would have surely looked up the legislation before using it. I strongly suspect that they actually know this isn't true and are using this common lie to justify the damage

This is the first and only really important line of  the act.

  (1) The Minister may make a code of practice for the purpose of providing guidance on how to prevent the spread of ragwort (senecio jacobaea L.).

You can read the full thing here Ragwort Control Act 2003 

It doesn't place any legal duty on even the minister to create this guidance, and guidance it is not law.

Oh and just in case you think it is a mistake and they meant the Weeds Act. That only provides for orders to be made to order control. These are rare and in the absence of one there is no obligation on anyone to do anything  In short there is no automatic legal duty in law to control ragwort

Sometimes we see a variant that omits the word,  "legal" I saw a recent example of this from an organisation called Forest of Marston Vale. Where they just implied the same thing and  claimed they had a duty to control ragwort while talking about obligations.  People reading this will be led to believe the, "It's an illegal weed" falsehood.

All these things, and I am convinced that some of them, particularly from local authorities are deliberate lies, undermine conservation. They lead to  people targeting ragwort where it can do no possible harm. Just the other day I had to tell someone who was growing ragwort in a garden on a housing estate  and who was being threatened by a neighbour of being reported to the council about her to order ragwort control anyway!

There  are lots of things  I could say about animal welfare,. Simply put, people have been scared by crazy scare stories into believing this plant is some kind of dangerous triffid. I point at the example of the Knepp rewilding project where they have a lot of ragwort and have hundreds of animals and no poisoning cases. The animals simply avoid it unless it is in hay or they are starved into eating it. There is actually no reliable test to identify ragwort poisoning! 

What guidance there is from the Government is based on a nonsensical use of risk statistics. They are scientifically worthless.