Kitchen Garden Forum

There's a diverse conversation underway on the thread 'Government consultation on phasing out peat use' with nearly 1800 views - evidence that this subject is of great interest to many forum members (viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9202).

But anyone finding government documents heavy going, and who uses Twitter, can now have their say on the consultation by joining in with the University of Aberdeen's Rural Economy and Land Use prpgrammes 'tweet for peat' initiative. Dr Mark Reed, project leader and acting director of Aberdeen Centre for Environmental Sustainability, who also joined our peat discussion here on the the KG forum, said:

“Our research shows how intact peat bogs provide society with a wide range of crucial services. Many businesses and organisations will be submitting their own responses to this consultation. We want to make sure ordinary people have a say in this important issue, and think Twitter may help make this easy for people.”

The full press release explaining the thinking behind 'tweet for peat' is here: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/news/details-9934.php

Mark Reed and his team are asking people (including us gardeners) to give their answers to the questions in the consultation document via Twitter (using 140 characters or less). They will then collate the responses and use them as part of a joint response to the consultation, which ends on March 11th 2011.

Today's first 'tweeted' question is
Q1 Do you support the rationale for taking action to reduce the horticultural use of peat? (This question is from page 12 of the consultation document found at the link given below).

To give your answer, if you are already a Twitter user, simply go to http://twitter.com/#!/reluuplands and tweet your reply, giving the question number (e.g. Q1) at the start of your tweet. Other questions will follow in turn throughout the rest of this week. You will also be able to read other Tweeters' responses as they come in.

If you'd like to join in but don't have a Twitter account, setting one up is quick and easy.

The government consultation document is here:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consu ... condoc.pdf

Government documents are probably more suited to using as doorstops, but this looks like a relatively pain-free and collaborative way for everyone to have their say on peat use in gardening. Us gardeners are, after all, responsible for using two thirds of all peat used in the UK...

Do other forum members think this is a good way to encourage individuals to join in with the peat conversation? If anyone gives it a go, perhaps they could let us know how they got on?

How to narrow down your sample group on one easy move.

As a serious person and a technophile guess which vacuous stream of drivel I avoid like the plague.

From the same link:

"The use of such mechanisms for participating in formal consultations is less common, however, and critics of Twitter argue that its enforced brevity dumbs down political debate.

Researchers are interested more widely in the potential for social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook to engage young people in political debate.

I have a twitter account for business, but not sure my followers would understand a sudden swing to gardening

I hope it works - certainly if you want to find out what is happening instantly get on twitter, but I am not sure how many of the target group (presumably the actual gardeners who use two thirds of the peat) will be inside tweeting when they could be outside listening to birds twittering. That said - Hugh FW's fish campaign via facebook has been a massive success - so who knows...

I wouldn't dream of having a Twitter account any more than I would a Facebook account, I have more concern for my own privacy and security. I don't care about the daily tittle tattle of people I know well never mind that of virtual acquaintances. Must be why I don't watch soaps either. I only use Google because there is really no alternative but consider them the greatest spyware organisation on the planet, they probably know more about me than I do.
As for Tweeting for peat I'll have to find a way of expressing my view that phasing out horticultural peat is about as environmentally ridiculous and marginal as phasing out tungsten light bulbs, and we all know what a disaster that is turning out to be (the original justification was marginal even with the life expectancies predicted but when the bulbs only give sensible light outputs for half their claimed lifespan their extra complexity and nastier chemical makeup cannot make them remotely justifiable). Probably the same lobby group involved. I don't find the habitats they are trying to preserve interesting or significant and the carbon argument is simply nonsense.
Bugger, I said I was going to ignore these political threads.

Geoff wrote:Bugger, I said I was going to ignore these political threads.

@Geoff

Thanks for your comments.

As for Tweeting for peat I'll have to find a way of expressing my view that phasing out horticultural peat is about as environmentally ridiculous and marginal as phasing out tungsten light bulbs

I'm interested in what reasons you can offer to back that up (can we stick to peat, please?).

I don't find the habitats they are trying to preserve interesting or significant and the carbon argument is simply nonsense.

You may not find peatlands interesting, but what have you got to back up your assertion that they're not significant?

Do you think preserving irreplaceable natural habitats, protecting biodiversity, reducing carbon emissions and maintaining the 'ecosystem services' which peatlands provide (such as maintaining water purity) are not signifcant and worth consideration?

Why do you think the argument for keeping peatlands intact to prevent them releasing their carbon is 'simply nonsense'?

The science on this is very clear i.e. harvesting peat bogs releases the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (previously stored in the peat) which is the primary driver of climate disruption. The UK government accepts this and that's why it's undergoing a consultation on ending peat use.

Out of interest, have any other forum members tweeted for peat? If you did, how did it go?

"The science on this is very clear i.e. harvesting peat bogs releases the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (previously stored in the peat) which is the primary driver of climate disruption."

The science of this is not very clear to me I'm afraid. Where is all this carbon dioxide coming from in the harvested peat. Peat does not contain carbon dioxide. Are gardeners taking it home to burn it in their back gardens? The carbon compounds in peat are pretty stable and not readily oxidised to carbon dioxide. This is one of the features of peat that makes it so useful to gardeners and growers.

John

PS Continuing to use peat-based composts until I can find a proper substitute.

Significant is a matter of scale, in several different ways.

Being surrounded as I am by thousands of acres of wet peaty land used for Grouse shooting and a few Sheep makes me realise that the area used for extraction is a small fraction of the total peat lands, one might say an insignificant part.

I am obviously in favour of biodiversity but every environment and every species cannot be preserved. The species rich areas such as rain forest or deciduous woodlands have to have priority. The number of species living uniquely in the areas suitable for peat extraction must be very small, one might say they are insignificant.

The contribution by peat breakdown to CO2 emissions has been stated elsewhere to be very small. Whatever organic matter we use in cultivation will break down to CO2 so if we make compost from stuff that historically would have gone into landfill we are releasing its CO2 instead of that from peat. It can be argued this is current CO2 rather than historical CO2 but I think if the sums were done correctly they would confirm the peat contribution to CO2 emission is very small, one might say insignificant.

(By the way I think you paragraph "The science on this is very clear i.e. harvesting peat bogs releases the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (previously stored in the peat) which is the primary driver of climate disruption" is simply journalistic exaggeration implying for the quick reader that peat extraction is a major driver of climate change which is simply untrue.)

So lets minimise the use of peat for soil improvement, where other materials can do a good job, but continue to use it for propagation where it is uniquely successful with everything else being pale substitutes.

Hi Geoff

As John Walker remains mute, have a think about this one:

Extraction of peat for UK use in horticulture causes 630,000 tonnes of CO2, the equivalent to annual emissions from all motorcycles and mopeds on UK roads, to be released into the atmosphere, putting our wildlife at greater risk from the dangers of climate change. These emissions cost the UK £32.5 million per year, and damage our chances of meeting our legal commitments on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Now there's a curious measure of emission

Source: http://www.rspb.org.uk/supporting/campa ... sharelinks

Quoting Which after their recent 'scientific' taste survey is hardly an endorsement and I'm afraid I also don't rate the RSPB very highly when it comes to science. Wonder where ithe quote came from.

The link quotes Kew as being peat-free but if you read Kew it says

Kew took the decision to stop using peat in 1989, except for carnivorous plants that cannot be grown in any other medium. It now uses peat substitute for potting composts and makes home-grown mulches at Kew and Wakehurst Place, using waste plant matter from the Gardens.

Kew makes 4,000 cubic metres of mulch a year.

If we were all had the facilities, time and labour to make home-grown mulches what a wonderful world it would be!

alan refail wrote:Hi Geoff

As John Walker remains mute, have a think about this one:

Extraction of peat for UK use in horticulture causes 630,000 tonnes of CO2, the equivalent to annual emissions from all motorcycles and mopeds on UK roads, to be released into the atmosphere, putting our wildlife at greater risk from the dangers of climate change. These emissions cost the UK £32.5 million per year, and damage our chances of meeting our legal commitments on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Now there's a curious measure of emission

Source: http://www.rspb.org.uk/supporting/campa ... sharelinks

Bloody expensive stuff this CO2

Why don't we just ban all the motorcycles and mopeds. The world would be a far quieter place. Job done

@John

Thanks for your reply.

"The science on this is very clear i.e. harvesting peat bogs releases the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (previously stored in the peat) which is the primary driver of climate disruption."

The science of this is not very clear to me I'm afraid. Where is all this carbon dioxide coming from in the harvested peat. Peat does not contain carbon dioxide. Are gardeners taking it home to burn it in their back gardens? The carbon compounds in peat are pretty stable and not readily oxidised to carbon dioxide. This is one of the features of peat that makes it so useful to gardeners and growers.

John

PS Continuing to use peat-based composts until I can find a proper substitute.

Just to be clear, I was not suggesting that the carbon dioxide emissions from peat are the primary driver of climate disruption/global warming, but that CO2 is the primary 'greenhouse gas' responsible for it - and peat releases CO2, firstly when the bogs are drained and then as the dry peat is extracted. The UK government acknowledges this:

Carbon begins to be lost to the atmosphere when the site is initially drained, and continues during the lifetime of the extraction operation from the exposed peat surface as well as from the extracted peat itself.

Source (page 6) NB PDF file: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consu ... condoc.pdf

Peat is primarily carbon. When peat bogs are drained, the peat, which was previously underwater, in airless (anaerobic) conditions, is exposed to the air (containing oxygen) and it oxidizes. This basic chemical process releases carbon dioxide which was previously locked away in the peat. You do not have to burn peat to release carbon dioxide - it happens readily when it is simply exposed to the air (although of course this is enhanced where peat is burnt).

Peat is useful to gardeners because it is a relatively inert, pathogen-free and easy to handle material (not because it is not easily oxidized). It is also easy and profitable to mine.

@Geoff

Many thanks for your reply.

Significant is a matter of scale, in several different ways.

Being surrounded as I am by thousands of acres of wet peaty land used for Grouse shooting and a few Sheep makes me realise that the area used for extraction is a small fraction of the total peat lands, one might say an insignificant part.

I am obviously in favour of biodiversity but every environment and every species cannot be preserved. The species rich areas such as rain forest or deciduous woodlands have to have priority. The number of species living uniquely in the areas suitable for peat extraction must be very small, one might say they are insignificant.

Of course it's the lowland raised peat bogs which are under greatest threat. Only a tiny fraction of what we once had in the UK remain. Surely ending peat use to preserve these for the benefit of future generations - and just for themselves - outweighs any short-term desire to continue with using peat in our gardens? The idea of knowingly using materials that are causing ecological destruction is surely at odds with what gardening, at its heart, is all about?

How can you be in favour of biodiversity (it's not obvious why you are, by the way) and then say not all species and environments can be preserved? Why not - wouldn't it be better to change our habits in the garden and elsewhere to protect and preserve as much as we possibly can? Humans do, after all, depend entirely on the health of the ecosystems around us - for which they offer their services free of charge.

Why should rainforests and woodlands get priority? Are you saying some species have less worth than others? Is a panda any less worthy of preservation and protection than say the great sundew which inhabits peat bogs? Isn't their beauty in both that we just can't afford to risk losing? I'm inclined to think we must do our best for both, and if that means changing the way we do things in our gardens, I'm happy to oblige.

Do you know for a fact that the number of species that live in peat extraction ares are very small, or is it just an inkling? I don't understand why only a small number of species (if that's the case) should be thought of as 'insiginificant'. Does that mean you wouldn't be bothered if they were to disappear for good, and you would consider it a price worth paying in order to go on using peat compost?

The contribution by peat breakdown to CO2 emissions has been stated elsewhere to be very small.

Where has the contribution to CO2 emissions from peat been stated as 'very small'? Do you have a reference? The UK government figures tell a rather different story:

As well as depleting the carbon store and impacting on biodiversity, archaeology and the landscape, extraction activities result in annual greenhouse gas emissions of at least 400,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) from UK extraction sites. This is equivalent to 100,000 cars on the road each year and does not take account of the peat that we import from overseas, principally from Ireland (which supplies 60% of our horticultural peat) and the Baltic States (8%). Current estimates of emissions from domestic extraction activities are also likely to be underestimates as they exclude emissions associated with the initial drainage of peat and subsequent emissions from the bare peat surface. In the context of the Climate Change Act 2008, and the Government‟s legally-binding carbon budget and target to reduce the UK‟s emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, all emission reductions are important.

Source (pages 8/9) NB PDF file: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consu ... condoc.pdf

Whatever organic matter we use in cultivation will break down to CO2 so if we make compost from stuff that historically would have gone into landfill we are releasing its CO2 instead of that from peat. It can be argued this is current CO2 rather than historical CO2 but I think if the sums were done correctly they would confirm the peat contribution to CO2 emission is very small, one might say insignificant.

Yes, you're right. Non-woody plants are just swapping CO2 between the air and their tissues on an annual basis (they grow and absorb it, then rot down in the compost heap and release it, with a little becoming more stable as garden compost then humus). It's the 'fossil' CO2 released by peat that's the problem - as is the CO2 released by the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.

Peat is a fossil fuel, so the same climate impacts apply when the carbon it stores is released.

What sums do you think aren't being 'done correctly'? Government figures (above) show 400,000 tonnes of CO2 are released each year from UK extraction alone (remember this doesn't include emissions from the 70% of peat which is imported). Do you still think the emissions of peat are 'insignificant'?

(By the way I think you paragraph "The science on this is very clear i.e. harvesting peat bogs releases the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (previously stored in the peat) which is the primary driver of climate disruption" is simply journalistic exaggeration implying for the quick reader that peat extraction is a major driver of climate change which is simply untrue.)

There's no exaggeration at all. I'm referring to carbon dioxide as being the main cause of global warming, and pointing out that harvesting peat contributes to that (as evidenced by the government figures given above). It's worth remembering that peat extraction goes on on a vast scale in other countries, so the overall contribution to climate change by gardeners worldwide must be phenomenal. My earth-friendly ethos means I'm doing all I can to minimise the negative impacts of what I do in my garden on the wider natural world. I'm naturally uncomfortable with the idea of using a material that is known to be making a direct contribution (by releasing CO2) to climate disruption. I don't want my gardening to cause hardships elsewhere, which is what our changing climate is doing.

So lets minimise the use of peat for soil improvement, where other materials can do a good job, but continue to use it for propagation where it is uniquely successful with everything else being pale substitutes.

I agree, green waste products are ideal for soil improvement, but I think I would rather stick to my earth-friendly principles, go for the top-performing peat-free composts and learn to get along with them better - they are after all improving all the time. It's simply misleading to suggest none of them perform as well as or even better than peat composts.

@alan refail

As John Walker remains mute

*Edited*

Some of us still have our day jobs to attend to and try to respond as and when we can.

These threads are getting too long winded and yet again personal. Please keep posts sensible length and polite


KGAdmin

Alan still hasn't had his answer regarding the 99% destruction. I would hazard a guess that the majority of this destruction is drainage and agriculture rather than extraction. It is highly unlikely there is a raw material on earth where 99% it its deposits can be economically extracted. As Alan said, when did the measurement start, before East Anglia was drained perhaps? I stick by my statement that extraction accounts for reversing only a small part of the CO2 fixed by peatlands. Lowland and upland peat are clearly different habitats but from a CO2 viewpoint they must be the same.
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. From the majority of comments I read it is so hard to raise plants using peat free composts I would be tempted not to bother.
The contribution of peat CO2 in the overall total is quoted in the other thread as 0.005 percent, which I consider insignificant.
The calculations appear to focus on peat extraction and contain no element of the impact of alternatives. It cannot be an all win scenario (e.g. shipping coir half way round the world) and there is an element of dishonesty in not showing both sides of the equation, that is why I originally compared it with the light bulb miscalculation.
I often feel if a fool proof way of greening the deserts to make them viable for agriculture was found a lobby group would arise that claimed a unique biodiversity was being destroyed.