|
How
this policy will address the points raised
by Shipley Parish Council.
The
points raised, as supplied by David Meadows
(Chair of the Shipley Parish council),
are dealt with below. David Meadows has also
drawn attention to a website of Ragwort
Facts - Information on Ragwort in the UK
from a scientific perspective
www.ragwortfacts.com/index.html
–
the reading of which is recommended. A
(translated) Dutch website www.ragwort.jakobskruiskruid.com
also
provides a more European perspective.
There
is concern that R. is spreading to a large
area of the Parish. There is no doubt that
R. has spread to areas where it has not been
seen, including gardens
– As stated earlier in this report, over
60% of ragwort seed falls within 4.5m (15ft)
of the parent plant. Clearly, ragwort needs
to be controlled within the High Risk zone,
but an increase in the parish overall cannot
realistically be blamed entirely on Knepp.
The
perception by local people and visitors is
that the countryside on large areas of Knepp
is not well managed
– KCE has taken considerable trouble to
let people know about the wildland project,
and the changes this will entail. It is
understood that many people do not like to
see changes, and the transition from
intensive arable to a mixture of parkland,
scrub and woodland does to many look like
‘bad’ management. Another point of view
is that the wildlife – birds, wild flowers
butterflies etc – will benefit greatly
from these changes. In fact, there is
already evidence that some of the UK’s
declining bird species are actually on the
increase in Knepp – including in 2008 for
the first time, two male woodlarks. So the
opinion of those who would prefer
‘farmland’ to ‘wildland’ has to be
balanced against those who prefer
‘wildland’ to ‘farmland’.
There
is a need for clear scientific information
to be available to local people so that they
are able to understand why Knepp should be
in a position to allow the growth and spread
of huge quantities of pernicious weeds and
at the same time be in a position to receive
supporting funding – The ‘pernicious weeds’ are essentially those that flourish on
bare ground. As a stable sward develops, the
level of these weed species is predicted to
fall. There is, in fact, a considerable
amount of scientific information on
vegetation succession, although admittedly
it tends to be in scientific publications to
which the general public may not have ready
access. The supportive funding currently
received by KCE is for the overall project,
and possibly contentious developments such
as weed proliferation are kept under review.
Supportive organisations such as Natural
England are working with Knepp to reduce any
aspect perceived as damaging by neighbours.
Are intensive farms in receipt of
agricultural subsidies entirely weed-free?
In
an article in the Daily Mail last year –
Graham Harvey August 2007 - (see Daily Mail
website and put ‘Ragwort’ in Search) it
is stated that pollen taken by bees for
local honey contains toxins. It also states
that inhaling pollen can lead to liver
damage in people.
Clearly these problems are greatest
where there is a large quantity of R., which
there appears to be on the Estate. These
claims require a scientific response so that
everyone is sure there is no danger to the
health of the general public
– The Defra Code of Practice and the HMSO
‘Poisonous Plants and Fungi’ state that
the risk of poisoning from honey containing
ragwort pollen or nectar is ‘highly
unlikely’ or ‘negligible’ in Britain.
The Code of Practice was drawn up in
consultation with the British Beekeepers’
Association. Bees collect nectar and pollen
from many other poisonous plants in the UK
– honey also undoubtedly contains residues
from pesticides and other environmental
contaminants, as does much of the rest of
the food we eat. The publications cited do
constitute ‘scientific response’, but
our knowledge in any field of human health
is never complete. We can only act on new,
scientifically verifiable, information as it
becomes available.
At
the meeting last week it was stated that
pulling ragwort will encourage more to grow.
This goes against the experience of
people who have pulled R. to clear it from
paddocks.
I still have my Agricultural Botany
book by John Percival which in the note on
R. states ‘When it’s stems have been
allowed to grow up, hand pulling after rain
exterminates it’ He also says that the
fruits blow about like groundsel and thistle
– Ragwort can and will grow from fragments
of root left behind in the soil; this is a
botanical fact. This does not mean that it
will ALWAYS regrow. Pulling it after rain
will allow a more complete plant to be
pulled, so fewer bits are left behind.
Undoubtedly pulling plants will help, but it
is not the answer over large areas, and it
will not stop re-colonisation. Yes, of
course the seeds blow about, they are
wind-dispersed, but most of them fall close
to the parent plant. But this also means
that not all of the ragwort in Shipley comes
from Knepp.
At
the meeting I believe that the number of
animals dying each year from poisoning was
greatly understated.
The British Horse Society believes
that a figure of 6,500 horses per year is
likely. Talking to knacker workers would support that large numbers
die
– it is unlikely that anyone truly knows
the correct figure, although it is
considered that the figure of 6,500 is an
exaggeration based on the faulty analysis of
a small sample survey (See Ragwort Facts
weblink). In any case, autopsies are seldom
carried out, and a number of other plants
can also poison livestock and will, because
liver damage is caused, show similar
symptoms to ragwort poisoning. The Defra
Code gives an extrapolated figure of 500
horse deaths in 2000, and the weblink
Ragwort Facts gives 13 in 2005, and
addresses this issue further. However, as
far as a horse-owner is concerned, one death
is far too many. The Defra Code of Practice
has been drawn up in conjunction with the
British Horse Society, English Nature, ADAS
and other organisations, and this Code
should be read by all concerned – it is
readily available either on the web or as a
(free) hard copy.
It
is incomprehensible that any organization
supporting organic farming would sanction a
system where no control of Injurious Weeds
was attempted
–
again, please refer to the Defra Code of
Practice, which contains advice and
procedures for organic farmers. It is a
question of informed balance.
The
agricultural value (ability to produce food)
of the land in a ‘no control’ situation
has to be of concern for the future. The
seed bank and in due course especially to
drainage systems
– The seed bank of non-agricultural plants
will undoubtedly increase, this is
considered one of the benefits of rewilding.
Not all of these will rank as ‘pernicious
weeds’. Soil structure, microclimate and
nutrient level may well improve; the brown
earths that develop under deciduous woodland
are known for their fertility, which is one
reason why woodlands were cleared in the
first place. Low Weald clay, as all those
who farm or garden on it know, is inherently
of poor fertility, is difficult to work and
drains poorly. It is accepted that the roots
of plants such as willows may damage field
drains, which would then need replacing if
land use changed in the future. But Knepp is
not being put under tarmac, housing,
concrete – or even sand schools. Should
future events dictate, the changes underway
are by no means irreversible and it is
disingenuous to suggest there is cause of
concern for the future.
Although
grazing animals appear to avoid R., where
there are large quantities some may be
broken to become dry and palatable; animal
welfare is therefore an important issue
– yes, undoubtedly, which is why the
estate is keen to implement a ragwort
control policy. All ragwort eventually dies,
but if it is not mixed with other plants in
hay or silage, livestock may better be able
to avoid it. The estate is continually
assessing any risks from ragwort to its own
livestock.
Where
fields have been seen to contain wall to
wall R. in previous years there now seems to
be a reduction to a lower but still
significant level. This is not however a
reassuring situation
– the ragwort control policy will continue
to work to reduce the risk of ragwort
spreading from the High Risk zone.
There
would not seem to be any call to eradicate
R., (and other listed plants in the
Injurious Weeds Act) but that there should
be control that is understood as policy,
which is seen to be carried out
– the estate’s ragwort control policy is
and will continue to be carried out. The
implementation of it will also reduce other
wind-dispersed species such as creeping and
spear thistle. This policy is available to
all those wishing to read it.
Will
the Ragwort and other Injurious Weeds
Control Policy prevent harm to Knepp’s own
livestock? -
The estate does not want its own
livestock harmed by ragwort ingestion. It
has taken advice from relevant organisations
including the Grazing Animals Project. The
opinion of participants on the GAP
discussion line is that animals are not
interested in ragwort that dies naturally
but will eat cut stems that have dried,
either on the ground or in a hay mixture. Our Steering Group member from the RSPCA has also found that
there is a risk of precocious youngsters
chewing on fresh ragwort out of curiosity.
It is hoped in these circumstances
that the unpalatable taste would be aversive
to them.
For more
information, visit Buglife’s fascinating
website
www.buglife.org.uk
|
