In the words of Geoff Hamilton

Nature's Babe · Fri Jun 29, 2012 8:20 am

“I think that gardeners buy peat because of brain conditioning rather than soil conditioning.” Geoff Hamilton

I know a lot of the substitutes are crap but with a little due care we can overcome that to save valuable habitat - perhaps if we saw the damage first hand .... this daughter of the soil also found the substitutes crap and offers a solution

http://daughterofthesoil.blogspot.co.uk ... -peat.html

Great to hear they are creating some habitat here with an airlift of seeds, rather than more news of destruction!

http://www.moorsforthefuture.org.uk/new ... save-moors

LOL Useless as a mulch because it dries easily and blows away, and very low in nutrients compared with homemade compost - surely it is far better as habitat? 94% of peat lands have been lost, surely it is worth making an effort to save the remaining 6% :?:

Johnboy · Sat Jun 30, 2012 6:33 am

Hi NB,

I think that gardeners buy peat because of brain conditioning rather than soil conditioning.” Geoff Hamilton

This quote by Geoff Hamilton is being misconstrued in the context that you are using it.
I believe it comes from one of his replies about throwing bag after bag of peat on a garden patch which is a total waste of time and very expensive which achives nothing.
On the other hand using peat for seeding is an entirely beneficial activity and this whole debacle regarding peat is through just a very few fanatics trying to change the world. They are a bunch of fanatical idiots who have continually been untruthful with their statements. They are needlessly costing the Horticultural industry and gardeners over half a billion pounds simply so that they can say "We managed to do it."
JB.

alan refail · Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:07 am

From Nigel Colborn's blog

I will continue to use peat - though sparingly and carefully - for as long as I can and I'm afraid I'm not ashamed of doing so. In fact I'm more ashamed of driving down to my relatives in Kent, instead of going by train, than I am of using peat as a growing medium.

I would NEVER use peat as a soil improver.

Colin Miles · Sat Jun 30, 2012 9:16 am

NB AND KG - If you have not already done so I would strongly suggest that you read the report that Alan mentioned.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/peat-taskforce/%20...%20eport1.pdf

Note comments such as:

[quoteThere is a need to decouple the reduction of peat use in horticulture from the protection and restoration of English Peat bogs. ....
ending the sales of peat in the UK does not automatically restore peat bogs.[/quote]

And note the suggested tests.

Indeed, I would suggest that the KG mag should do an article on this report.

Nature's Babe · Sat Jun 30, 2012 10:41 am

Johnboy and Alan, each to his own choices.Thank you for the explanation of the context which I was not aware of and I quite happily take your word for that, however it does not alter the statistics regarding habitat destruction. Colin, thank you for the link.
Personally if I am at all ashamed to do something I try very hard to live by my beliefs and take responsibility for my own conscience and actions, which is why I no longer own a car but travel by public transport or a lift with someone else who happens to be going anyway, our air quality is already below EU requirements for health, it is affecting the populations health and our children and grandchildren need clean air / environment.
Similarly when I am aware of the fact that we have destroyed 94% of a rare habitat I do not feel I personally have a right to contribute to the destruction of the remaining 6% by buying peat - that is my personal choice.
It was noticeable neither of you commented on the links with the good news and the positive work being done to restore such habitat by reseeding, and the helpful suggestions put forward to avoid such destruction, preferring instead to repeat your already well aired views.
I concede it is not an easy choice as the second article also points out, but some things in life - like avoiding the destruction of a rare and valuable habitat and preserving it for future generations, are worth that extra bit of effort.

Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:31 am

A far more effective pursuit to trying to keep human destruction of habitats under control would be to address the elephant in the room.

Population levels and in the UK the "need" for building more and more houses. My town is now slated for an additional three thousand houses on farmland inside our bypass, which will enclose several SSSI's with housing, leading to them becoming play areas.

Don't see anyone confronting this (national) issue, oh no BBC et al put on their "seriously caring, best hand wringing" attitudes and discuss the disgrace of failing to provide adequate housing supply, or the crime of even considering limiting child benefit to the first two offspring, when they should be discussing the failure to make population limits a human goal.
Which, as I'm sure any thinking person would know, would make all the worlds resources last longer, improve the quality of life for all and allow something for other species.

Rant over. :oops:

Colin Miles · Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:49 am

I appear not to have copied Alan's link correctly, so here it is again.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/peat-taskforce/files/SGMTF-Interim-Report1.pdf

NB - admirable though the links you gave may be, it is to the science and practicalities connected with peat/non-peat use that is of concern.

Thus see P7 - Performance standards for Amateur products. And P8 concerned with helping Professional Growers to increase their use of alternatives.

Peter - oh dear - perhaps that rant should be moderated - or moved?

Nature's Babe · Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:08 pm

Peter, with respect, I agree with you, we have a finite planet, we do need to consider our impact on the planet before giving birth, that is one reason why I chose to adopt rather than continue adding to an already overpopulated planet. However it is rather off topic, what I was hoping for was more positive discussion around those two links, but everyone seems to have more pressing agendas and rants. :wink:

Colin, thank you for correcting the link, I'm having a cuppa at the moment but I will read it after completing chores.If you read the second link she does appear to have discovered a practical alternative though she agrees regarding the difficulties with commercial non peat products, she persevered because witnessing the destruction upset her so much, so it is relevant in my opinion, and I do sympathise with the problems poor non peat alternatives raise which is why I posted this in the first place, and why i informed Defra of the poor quality and problems with non peat alternatives!
With a will to solve the problems it should not be beyond us to find a substitute, if we are prepared to look at both sides

Colin Miles · Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:17 pm

NB- with all due respect, it is because substitutes can be crap that I have pointed you in the direction of this report. We all respect your beliefs, but as you point out -

Sit down before a fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconcieved notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.

And many, many apologies but please. please could you correct the spelling - I am a sensitive soul and it grates every time I read it.

Nature's Babe · Sat Jun 30, 2012 1:18 pm

Actually Colin I copy pasted that quote and missed the misspelling, quite right i before e except after c, though if you are so very sensitive it seems counterproductive to keep reading it :wink:

when I have a moment I will go back to the quote and change it - meanwhile please avert your eyes. :lol:

With respect, I have read many misspellings here and have ignored them all
we are all capable of errors and I feel personally that tolerance helps the smooth running of the forum !
PS If you read my previous comments in this thread you will see I do consider both sides, i will read your link when I have more time, and I'm well aware many substitutes are crap, I do have sympathy with those struggling to find an alternative, which is why I posted these more positive links. Meanwhile I have to get some weekend shopping Peace.

farmer jon · Sat Jun 30, 2012 1:41 pm

Nature's Babe wrote: I do sympathise with the problems poor non peat alternatives raise which is why I posted this in the first place, and why i informed Defra of the poor quality and problems with non peat alternatives!
With a will to solve the problems it should not be beyond us to find a substitute, if we are prepared to look at both sides

this is the whole problem in a nutshell ! time has not been spent finding a good,suitable alternative. the environmentalists have panicked the government into reducing peat content BEFORE a suitable product has been found. peat should still be available in composts in the % it was before all this flared up. yes by all means reduce peat use but at least give us professional growers a product that is equally as good & continue to give us peat until this has been perfected. the current amateur & profess reduced peat composts are utter rubbish.
the late Mr hamilton has a lot to answer for in the gardening world & would certainly not have been on my xmas card list.

alan refail · Sat Jun 30, 2012 2:02 pm

Oh dear! I had promised myself not to get back into the peat/non-peat "debate" again. And I did not break my resolution until Johnboy pointed out the first of the misconceptions in your initial post, NB. At first I was wondering what point you were trying to make.
Although often quoted (wrongly/mischievously?) Geoff Hamilton, quite rightly, pointed out that peat should not be wasted on chucking into beds as a soil conditioner - that's pretty clear from the words you quoted. I agree 100% with that. I seem to recall, though I cannot quote chapter and verse, that he used peat based multi-purpose compost in his TV series.
I did follow your links, as it happens - I always do. The first was someone who, over five years ago, "discovered" coir. Not really new. The second had nothing whatsoever to do with peat harvesting or use by growers. It concerned the regeneration of degraded moorland (much caused by recreational use and, of course, ancient deforestation). In this context I wonder how much fossil fuel was used in the aerial transport of 5,500 bulk-bags of heather brash.
Finally you state "94% of peat lands have been lost, surely it is worth making an effort to save the remaining 6%". Could you tell us where you got this statistic from? Over what period of time have the peatlands been lost? What use were they put to? How much of this loss is due to horticultural compost use? There are four questions there. With the utmost respect I would suggest that if you cannot answer all of them, then you should be wary of using emotive quasi-statistics. I think I can answer at least the second and third questions.
If you read the Sustainable Growing Media Task Force Interim Report you will note that the task force adopts a very rational approach to the situation. It has turned out to be very far from the Whitehall poodle anti-peat campaigners must have hoped for. Indeed, it is very critical of the governments motives and grasp of realities in initiating the whole policy. I posted the link over a week ago and was surprised that it had received so few views. Perhaps I should not have hidden it away in "News and Views". I assure you it is well worth careful reading.

Sat Jun 30, 2012 2:15 pm

NB, I rather suspect that the majority of active posters on this forum are satisfied that the peat versus non-peat issue has been debated in sufficient depth until more concrete data such as output from the government task group before revisiting the topic, otherwise I anticipate pretty much all the same comments will be made, again.

Apart from spammers it is the most moderation intensive thing to appear on the forum and yes if the other moderators think I was too far off topic they'll moderate my personal opinion.

Colin Miles · Sat Jun 30, 2012 2:58 pm

I should add that I have very personal interest in peat bogs as I live above one and have, on and off for the past 5 years, been fighting housing development on it. 2 attempts have failed, the 3rd has outline planning permission. Fortunately the chances of actually converting that to full planning is remote, but the difference between land valued at nothing and land with outline planning permission in this case could be £500,000! You can work out the motives from that!! But that is to go off-topic.

Again I can only repeat the defra quote

[quoteThere is a need to decouple the reduction of peat use in horticulture from the protection and restoration of English Peat bogs. ....
ending the sales of peat in the UK does not automatically restore peat bogs.[/quote]

and to draw attention again to the report. Comments like that in P6c

Green compost will not be a solution to peat replacement either in terms of complete replacement or its suitability for certain uses. However, it does have an important role to play. A number of issues have been raised over the use of green compost ranging from potential contamination with herbicides to bio-security risks (plant diseases) to insufficient control of physical contaminants.

Do read the report. It isn't technical.

WestHamRon · Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:30 pm

peter wrote:NB, I rather suspect that the majority of active posters on this forum are satisfied that the peat versus non-peat issue has been debated in sufficient depth until more concrete data such as output from the government task group before revisiting the topic, otherwise I anticipate pretty much all the same comments will be made, again.

Apart from spammers it is the most moderation intensive thing to appear on the forum and yes if the other moderators think I was too far off topic they'll moderate my personal opinion.

Lockdown, Shirley ? :roll:

In the words of Geoff Hamilton

Login • Register