Tweet for peat

[alan refail]

On the matter of misleading information, the NFU is calling on Defra to rethink their approach to the peat question -

http://www.nfuonline.com/News/NFU-calls ... k-on-peat/

Horticultural adviser Dr Chris Hartfield said that the evidence on which the proposed policy is based is weak or anecdotal, and that is has been used in a seriously flawed, selective and misleading way.

[John Walker]

The result of the 'tweet for peat' experiment instigated by the University of Aberdeen's Rural Economy and Land Use programme is at the link below.

To see the responses, click on 'comments' under each question (although it only says '1 comments' there are numerous replies in each comment posted).

Clearly not a great response but nonetheless a good way of exploring how social media might be used to engage people with other important topics (including those of interest to gardeners) in the future.

https://ktn.innovateuk.org/web/m.reed/blogs

[richard p]

the above calculation... guess might be a better word ...of the amount of co2 released by peat extraction is total rubbish... it starts with the co2 released when the peat bog is drained.... if the experts bothered to actually get to know the indusstry they are trying to destroy or even visit the somerset levels they would realise (hopefully) that the peat bogs were drained for agricultural purposes ... started by the monks in the middle ages.... drainage of peat bogs specifically for peat extraction just doesnt happen... the whole co2 argument as presented is just total garbage.

regarding biodiversity if you compare the hypothetical vast areas of untouched peat bog.... which actually doesnt exist in somerset... with the current mix of drained agricultural land and the nature reserves on the old peat workings it is glaringly obvious that the bio diversity has been increased by the creation of a varied habitat..

the reality is there for anyone to see if they take a rest from spouting dogma and open their eyes

[alan refail]

Given that the vast majority of questions receive no comments, it doesn't say much for the power of twits (sorry tweets )

The comments there were amounted to very little, mostly just parroting from the anti-peat hymn sheet.

[John Walker]

@ richard p
Of course the whole conversation around conserving peat bogs for future generations is largely centred on lowland raised bogs in England. Even a basic understanding of how peat is extracted from these natural habitats would tell you that the very first thing that happens is they are drained. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to get the heavy machinery onto the bog.

If you have any credible information, rather than opinion, to back up anything else you say in your last comment, then I'm sure we would all be interested to read it. Phrases like 'total garbage' are hardly illuminating.

@ alan refail
Still no luck with the RSPB, Alan? It's taking an awfully long time, don't you think? Maybe it's time to try the old-fashioned way and pick up the phone? I've already supplied the contact details

[richard p]

john you are wrong ....the entire somerset levels were drained for agriculture not specifically for peat extraction . (which occurs on a very small area..)... which makes the calculation of co2 release that you quoted not worth the time taken to invent it.... repeating garbage doesnt make it any more truthful..

[alan refail]

Just to back up your point, Richard, here is the history of the drainage of the levels taken from the Wikipedia article -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_Levels#Drainage

[Cider Boys]

Thank you Alan for posting such an interesting link, perhaps it may prove useful to read from the begining for people to understand how a such a special area of bio-diversity and conservation has evolved because of local rural people and their rural industries and not despite of them.

The use of land has changed in my life time, in the 50's and 60's much of it used to be used for dairy cow grazing in the summer and you would see blue portable milking units scattered all over the moors. Cattle were too far from the farms to be brought back to milk so farmers would drive out on their grey fergies and milk in the fields - alway a hard way of life bent over in all winds and weathers twice a day. Not for them the modern milking parlours of today.

Barney

[alan refail]

Hi Barney

I think it best to have the facts

You might like this picture




Lots more pictures of old Somerset here

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brizzlebor ... 570766555/

[Elle's Garden]

I don't think that shows that social networking is an overwhelming success for the purpose, but my opinion is that the subject matter does not appeal to the twitterati, the people who are perhaps most likely to have an opinion on the subject are not on twitter. I am sure that with the right subject social networking works perfectly as a source of information.

[richard p]

or a source of miss information and uninformed opinion

[Johnboy]

Hi Richard,
Tweet for Peat is a very poor attempt by the anti peat campaign at emotional blackmail they are trying very hard to promote the Aaaagh factor. You will find that all minority lobby groups use the same tactics and generally when they meet strong opposition.
It is an attempt to persuade the whole nation that they are the saviours of the planet and really all they are doing is foisting their many very untruthful statements on an unsuspecting public because their unproven theories are presented as facts. They then ask for a vote!
JB.

[John Walker]

Reading the start of this thread actually explains who set up 'tweet for peat' and why they did it. It was the idea of the University of Aberdeen's Rural Economy and Land Use programme. In other words, it was instigated by trained scientists who specialise in looking at peatlands and what happens to them - hardly a 'minority lobby group'. The whole experiment was intended to gather responses to the questions in the government consultation on ending peat use. No one will argue that the experiment was disappointing in terms of overall response.

If anyone thinks that the University of Aberdeen's Rural Economy and Land Use programme (or indeed anyone else) were using 'emotional blackmail', using 'untruthful statements' and putting forward 'unproven theories' then perhaps they should back up such claims with something credible.

@Colin Miles

Kew: the important thing here is that Kew have managed to grow without peat compost (other than using it for a small number of carnivorous plants) for decades and are therefore a good and credible example of peat-free 'best practice' which can be aspired to by gardeners.

The fact that they make a lot of mulch is irrelevant to the discussion on ending the use of peat compost.

@Geoff

I am sure my gardening activities support more life than they destroy. My garden was created from poor quality marginal agricultural land similar to upland peatlands. It is now insect and bird rich in a way it was not before I started. I incorporate several times more organic matter than I use as peat based potting compost. That I am able to successfully raise and grow so many plants (many of these perennials, trees and shrubs) must mean I capture more CO2 than I release.

How can you be sure, and how can this be true if we continue destroying lowland raised peat bogs to fill plastic bags with compost? The extraction of peat destroys natural habitat that supports life. It also releases carbon dioxide, which is the main contributor to climate change, and that is destroying life too - some of it human. Much carbon has been released before we even cut a bag of peat compost open. That is fact. The amounts are not insubstantial and I'm afraid it's wishful thinking to say that by growing plants using peat compost somehow 'cancels out' the local damage done by the peat extraction process and the global damage being done by climate disruption. The UK government recognises the role of peatlands to store and continue to soak up carbon and that's why it's one of the drivers for ending peat use. That recognition is based on scientific fact.

@richard p

john you are wrong ....the entire somerset levels were drained for agriculture not specifically for peat extraction . (which occurs on a very small area..)... which makes the calculation of co2 release that you quoted not worth the time taken to invent it.... repeating garbage doesnt make it any more truthful..

It's not about me being right or wrong, but about looking at the facts, stubborn as they can be.

I think there might be a few crossed wires here (and your repeated use of the word 'garbage' is less than constructive). I'm not sure what calculation of C02 release you are actually referring to. My comments refer generally to lowland raised bogs in the UK, most of which are in England. As I've already said, your suggestion that draining peat bogs for peat extraction 'doesn't happen' is factually incorrect (the picture posted by alan refail appears to show a cart carrying peat. Neither the horse nor the cart would be able to work the peat unless the area had been drained first). In many ways it's irrelevant how the Somerset Levels came about, interesting as it is as a historical record. What's important is how we manage the carbon they contain now, given that science tells us that adding more carbon to the atmosphere is driving climate disruption worldwide. Gardeners don't have an opt-out on doing their bit to reduce carbon emissions.

I haven't made specific mention of Somerset's peatlands in this thread (although others have) but the following, which refers specifically to Somerset and also gives actual figures on C02 release, might be useful reading (my emphasis in bold):

Peat soils are recognised as a significant global carbon store and the UK contains a relatively high proportion of these soils. Within the UK the Somerset Levels and Moors are the second largest area of lowland peat and therefore could be considered as a nationally important carbon store. It is estimated that they store almost 11 million tonnes of carbon(16). Peat extraction contributes to the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas, as the excavated peat breaks down and releases carbon dioxide. Healthy peat forming environments take in carbon in relatively small quantities but the greatest carbon benefit is the carbon store that has been built up over many thousands of years.

The Minerals Planning Authority has requested recent peat extraction figures from Somerset’s Growing Media Association representative. The average annual extraction rate for Somerset based on 2004, 2005 and 2007 figures was 88,000 m3/year 17 (2006 figures were not reported). This rate of extraction represents a loss from the carbon store of around 1450tC/year. In order to recapture this carbon a minimum of 70 hectares of grassland or open water would need to be converted to commercial reed beds, a much larger area than that worked for the peat. Other land use changes could require much larger areas of conversion.

Source (NB PDF download, p19, but the whole document is worth a read): http://www.somerset.gov.uk/irj/go/km/do ... 0Paper.pdf

[John Walker]

@alan refail

On the matter of misleading information, the NFU is calling on Defra to rethink their approach to the peat question

Don't you find it odd that the NFU came put with this statement after the consultation had ended, rather than pose these concerns last December? And there's nothing credible from the NFU to back up what they say. It's just their opinion - and sadly not an unexpected one. Other than that it's a bit of a distraction here as we gardeners account for 70% of peat compost use in the UK.

RSPB response
When will you be able to let us have the response from the RSPB? The clarification you're after should have taken hours, a few days at most to gather, but not weeks (we've been waiting since 9th March). Have you followed up your original email (see above for Alan's questions to the RSPB) or telephoned them as I suggested previously? They're a friendly and professional bunch.

John Walker wrote:
At this point can I humbly suggest that, in the interests of constructive and respectful debate, it might be better to hold fire on posting further comments until Alan hears back from the RSPB and posts their clarification here for us to digest? That is after all what this thread was started for.

Then, depending on whether the information enriches the discussion, we can continue on from there. How about it folks?

Alan, you'll just have to be persistent, like anyone seeking information has to be.

Thank you John - I'll second that proposal.

Suggesting the RSPB can't/won't reply based on having no reply to a single email isn't going to cut the mustard, I'm afraid. They may never have even received your email, or it might just have slipped from view (they were in the middle of a major campaign launch in the week you sent it).

I for one would appreciate seeing their reply so we can digest its contents, unlock the other thread and continue the conversation. So how about it, Alan?

[alan refail]

John Walker

I'm afraid I rather resent your admonitory tone. Why do you assume I have only sent one e-mail? I did not follow your instruction to phone the RSPB, as I prefer to have facts in writing. Perhaps you could "cut the mustard" and get their answer yourself.