CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION.
What is a Poisonous Plant? As will be shown later, so-called “poisonous” plants differ widely in “degree of harmfulness,” and it is highly probable that under ordinary conditions many of the plants commonly reputed to be poisonous are really almost or quite harmless. It is possible, however, that a plant usually unsuspected may on occasion prove noxious—for example, Nepeta Glechoma (p. [96]), included as suspected of poisoning horses. For these reasons, no line of demarcation can be drawn to separate actually poisonous plants from those which are suspected or are almost certainly quite harmless; and a large number of species is included in Chapter VII as suspected, many of them, however, being almost certainly more or less poisonous in certain circumstances. In many cases it is practically impossible to come to any conclusion as to the degree of toxicity of a plant, owing to the want of exact information. Many plants are quite harmless except when affected by fungi, moulds, etc.
A really poisonous plant may be defined as one a small quantity of which when eaten induces some form of indisposition with irritant, narcotic, or nervous symptoms, with serious or even fatal consequences either immediately or by reason of cumulative action of the toxic property.
Harm done by Poisonous Plants. A perusal of the following pages will afford convincing proof that the question of the general “wholesomeness” of wild plants is worthy of serious consideration by all who are interested in the practice of agriculture. Still more important is a satisfactory knowledge of the extent to which plants are actually poisonous—that is, sufficiently injurious when eaten in small or large quantities to induce more or less severe indisposition, illness or death, with the consequent losses which such bring in their train—loss of milk and meat production in the case of cattle, of meat and wool production in sheep, of power in the horse, of expenditure in attendance and veterinary treatment generally, and possibly total loss by death of the animals concerned.
The losses due to Poisonous Plants in Great Britain happily afford no comparison whatever with the immense losses sustained in some other countries, such as the cases of lupine poisoning mentioned at p. [29], but deaths are sufficiently numerous to make it certain that financial losses are in the aggregate very heavy. In this connection it may suffice to refer to the many cases of yew poisoning, the losses due to Umbellifers (pp. [36]–42), and the instance reported in the Staffordshire Weekly Sentinel in relation to meadow saffron and water hemlock (p. [80]). Further, it appears to be extremely likely that many losses due to unascertained causes are really due to plant poisoning. For this reason veterinary surgeons will be well advised always to consider this possibility and, if need be, to obtain the services of a trained botanist to survey the farm or field involved, with the object of deciding whether poisonous plants are present.
Circumstances in which Poisoning occurs. It may be assumed that many plants are to a considerable extent protected from animals by the fact that they have an unpleasant odour, are acrid or bitter to the taste, or are actually toxic in character, just as others assume such protective devices as spines. In a state of nature animals appear to avoid instinctively such plants as are toxic or “unwholesome,” and to be less readily poisoned than are domesticated animals living under artificial conditions. Indeed, it has been remarked that farm stock reared in a locality where certain poisonous plants abound are much less likely to be injured by these plants than animals imported from a district where they do not occur.
The individuality of stock is also a factor which may be responsible for poisoning, some animals having what may be described as a depraved appetite for unusual and unappetising food plants. It would appear that animals are often tempted to eat dark-green plants of luxuriant growth which are soft and succulent. This is especially true when the plants are young and tender, particularly as regards sheep, which, however, usually avoid tall, old rank-growing and coarse herbage—unless absolutely pressed by hunger. Cattle, however, are not so particular, and will commonly eat large coarse-growing plants.
Sheep have been observed to be particularly variable in their choice of food plants, not only individually in the flock, but from day to day. Chesnut and Wilcox remark[[1]] that “there seems to be no way of accounting for the appetite or taste of stock. This statement is perhaps especially true of sheep. We have often observed sheep eating greedily on one day plants which they could scarcely be persuaded to eat on the following day on the same range.” In the case of one flock of sheep on a foothill range at an altitude of 4,600 ft. “a few of the sheep were observed eating large quantities of wild sunflower (Balsamorhiza sagittata), a few ate freely of false lupine (Thermopsis rhombifolia), some confined their attention largely to the wild geranium, while others ate false esparcet (Astragalus bisulcatus) almost exclusively. Two sheep were seen eating the leaves of lupine, and about fifty ate a greater or less quantity of Zygadenus venenosus, while the majority of sheep in the band fed exclusively upon the native grasses on the range.”
[1]. “The Stock-Poisoning Plants of Montana,” V. K. Chesnut and E. V. Wilcox. Bul. No. 26. U.S. Dept. Agric., Div. Bot., 1901.
Horses also have been known to acquire in America a depraved appetite for horsetail and loco-weed.