In the words of Geoff Hamilton

[Nature's Babe]

In answer to your question, I can't remember where I found the 96% v 6% stats, - but while looking for it I found this interesting report here from the guardian. In particular the governments own figures in the Stern report on the future costs to our children and grandchildren if we extract peat are of note, we have already saddled them with the costs of university education, of dealing with staggering national debts and the cost of dealing with nuclear waste - if we love our children and grandchildren, do we really want to add more to this burden? If future costs of carbon emissions were added into the price of a bag of peat, I suspect gardeners would soon turn to alternatives !

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/g ... eat-carbon

[alan refail]

In answer to your question, I can't remember where I found the 96% v 6% stats,

In which case you should not use it to argue your case. Do you have answers to my other three questions?

[Colin Miles]

NB - Please, please read the report. It is non-technical and only 19 pages long and gives an honest assessment from those who actually know of all the problems associated with peat and non-peat use - rather than posting links to opinion pieces.

And I say again to the KG magazine - read it and report it.

[Johnboy]

Hi WHR,
If you do not want to take part in the thread simply do not read it.
So far nobody has said that they would never use Peat Substitutes
but it is the quality and sustainability of that quality that is in question.
You will note the Dr Knight in his report has used the word 'assumptions' rather than 'statistics.' He has wisely done this because he has obviously realised that the 'statistics' used in the consultative paper could simply not be substiantiated. DEFRA were asked time and time again for clarity but were unable to reply.
My thoughts are that Dr knight will still be working it all out long after the ban on peat use comes into force and I think that the date will be amended and the period considerably put back.
Farmer Jon it so right when he says that they (DEFRA) didn't do their homework before announcing the propose ban.(not verbatim)
JB.

[oldherbaceous]

The first company to put their peat free compost through a industrial macerator, might be onto a winner.

Our local Frosts garden centre, do there own bagged compost, this is a very fine textured compost indeed, not sure what company bag it for them. This must be passed through a fine grader or a maserator. There compost seems to be popular around this way, but not with me, just doesn't seem to have enough body to it.

I do remember the problem of lumpy, coarse compost being about before peat free was around, with some brands being better than others.

[JohnN]

I must admit to being a bit confused by some of the "don't use peat" arguments.
I have a lot of sympathy with not burning peat, though the Irish have been doing it for centuries and even have (had?) a peat-fired electricty generating station in Co Mayo.
But surely to use peat for growing purposes is just recycling a natural resource? I've tramped across many peat bogs and was never enthralled by their natural flora and fauna. I've seen them excavated to over 6 feet deep and the base of peat that's left continues to nurture plants, it's just a slightly lower landscape, arguably superior to the peat bog. So instead of millions of tons of mostly invisible peat spread over vast tracts of Ireland et al, those same tons are helping to feed people in the gardens and allotments of the UK and other countries. Doesn't sound a bad deal to me!
JohnN

[Johnboy]

Hi John N,
What you have said is good common sense but sadly with this whole Peat Debacle common sense went out of the window long ago!
JB.