Best and cheapest compost?

Leif

A._Badger wrote: »

That's pretty banal. Seabrook is a hugely respected horticultural journalist with a lifetime's experience. Simply trying to brush his views aside as being just those of a 'celebrity' is ridiculous.




Irish peat is under the oversight of an Irish semi-state run body, the Bord na Mona. It says where it comes from on the bag.



Why not let the Irish decide? They have already invested heavily in reclamation and renewables. I'm sure they can do without being lectured by sanctimonious British 'Greens'

Badger: I really do not like the offensive tone of your post, using terms such as 'banal' and 'sanctimonious'. :mad: And why on earth do you bring in 'Greens'? What has that got to do with anything? And I did not brush aside Seabrook's views, but just because he says something does not make it true. What is the basis for his views? How come so many people disagree with him? What I have seen of his views are summaries with no evidence. For example, the assertion that peat can regenerate much faster if water levels are managed. The issue is what does it cost to manage water levels, and is that actually ever done, or is that green wash?

And just because something is sanctioned by a government means nothing. There are serious issues with destruction of some habitats in Eastern Europe, sponsored by the governments, and protested against by locals. Apart from bags of peat labelled 'Irish peat', none of the compost I have seen states the origin of the peat. Is it from an okay area, or a sensitive habitat? Who knows.

A._Badger

Leif wrote: »

Badger: I really do not like the offensive tone of your post, using terms such as 'banal' and 'sanctimonious'. :mad:
.

Priceless. You dismiss the opinions of one of the country's most respected horticultural journalists as those of a mere 'celebrity' and then get snotty because I, accurately, described that response as banal.

As you seem so keen on consensus, you might note that other gardein journalists who have admitted to usig peat inlude Bob Flowerdew (say it's not so!), Nigel Colborn (who inter alia happens to be chair of the Royal Horticultural Society’s Trials Advisory Committee) Christine Walkden and even The Titchmarsh.

Still, I'm sure some bloke on an internet forum who takes his opinions from Green pressure groups knows best.

I simply can't be bothered to wasting time arguing with you,. Leif.

Leif

A._Badger wrote: »

Priceless. You dismiss the opinions of one of the country's most respected horticultural journalists as those of a mere 'celebrity' and then get snotty because I, accurately, described that response as banal.

Yet more personal abuse. Can't you discuss something without being deliberately obnoxious? Is verbally abusing someone you disagree with your usual practice?

A._Badger wrote: »

As you seem so keen on consensus, you might note that other gardein journalists who have admitted to usig peat inlude Bob Flowerdew (say it's not so!), Nigel Colborn (who inter alia happens to be chair of the Royal Horticultural Society’s Trials Advisory Committee) Christine Walkden and even The Titchmarsh.

Still, I'm sure some bloke on an internet forum who takes his opinions from Green pressure groups knows best.

I simply can't be bothered to wasting time arguing with you,. Leif.

Well, there we go. As you should know, but have not admitted, the issue is contentious. You have not stated anything about where the peat in compost comes from. Do you know? You have not referenced Seabrook's arguments except in the briefest manner. You have not given any evidence. Whether or not there is something in what you say, your post is full of personal abuse, hardly convincing is it? What I know from listening to some of the people you mention such as Flowerdew, is that they like peat because they think there is no effective substitute i.e. nothing else is as good. I'm not sure they know much about the habitat issue, though I might be mistaken.

And no I do not get my views from green pressure groups. The RSPB is a huge organisation with a massive UK membership, hardly a fringe group, or a green pressure group. I have known for a long while that forestation in the Scottish bogs was and possibly still is a serious threat to the flora and fauna in the area. And you yourself mentioned the Somerset Levels, which is a threatened habitat due to drainage.

I prefer not to buy peat unless the bag contains a clear statement on the origin of the peat such that I can be assured that I am not damaging sensitive habitats. I don't see that.

forgotmyname

Anyone bought a fresh batch of the B&Q stuff this year?

Any good? Got a batch number? Save me buying something that wont work.

A._Badger

forgotmyname wrote: »

Anyone bought a fresh batch of the B&Q stuff this year?

Any good? Got a batch number? Save me buying something that wont work.

Yes, I've had two of the giant bales of this year's mix. 'Not too bad' is the best I could say for it - but given the general deterioration of compost quality in recent years, it may be as good as we can hope for.

The problems are the usual - twigs and larger pieces of uncomposted wood, but a fine sieve would separate those. I'd try Humax but the past few bags I've had of that have been poor, too.

forgotmyname

I will see if i have any of the Sainsbury's stuff left.. A photo will have you thinking what on earth is that. Shredded fibres.. But the seeds grew.

Lavender_Rose

Is Peter Seebrooks commercial involvement and links with peat companies something to do with his most unusual attitude (as far as most gardeners are concerned) towards peat?

Just a thought

sobie

Unfortunately Peter Seabrook article in the sun is true, demand from customers is for Peat Based Composts. we sell 99% more peat based compost at our garden centre, even though I'm a strong advocator of peat free. (New horizon is lovely stuff!). IMHO That's simply because Peat Based is cheaper than peat free.

If the govenment are serious in stopping the use of Peat for Horticulture by 2020 they should either tax the use of peat, or give tax/ VAT reductions for peat free composts. Good peat free compost is expensive because the companies that have developed it want their money back! Bring the cost in-line or even cheaper than Peat based and watch what happens to Peter Seabrooks sales figures then :rotfl:!

Peter Seabrook is also right in that compost is very variable, and not always consistent. there's a simple answer the demand is for Cheap rather than quality, and suppliers are meeting that demand. If you pay £6 for a bag instead of £3 it will be a lot better compost! Quality of peat free compost has vastly improved over the years, and most UK nurseries we purchase our plants for sale from all use Peat free composts now.

This thread title says it all really - Best and CHEAPEST compost.

So Why Should Peat Use Be Banned:

There are many different kinds of peat. Lowland peat (the kind used in horticulture) makes up about 20% of all peat types. Lowland peat is re-newable but at a much slower rate than which it is harvested, it takes thousands of years for just 1mm of lowland peat to "grow".

Peter Seabrook, and most of the horticultural trade, looks at all 100% of peat reserves - not the 20% he should be commenting on. And yes he's right those 80% remaining kinds of peat are renewable, so the figures banded about by "Peat Lovers" are sku-ed.

Something like 70,000 hectares of Lowland peat is left, of that less than 8,000 hecteres are in AS NEW condition (ie have not been touched).

We all know that harvesting peat releases CO2 into the environment. Peat is the earths best natural way of storing CO2, in fact Peat is far better than the conversion rate of trees.

Peter Seabrook's comments on NOT collecting garden waste is simply bizarre! not everyone is blessed with gardens large enough for compost bins. What should happen to our garden waste - should it go to landfill? Surely a company (like Vital Earth or New Horizon) that properly compost the waste is a much better way of dealing with garden waste?

On a final note, Our ancestors never used peat for gardening, they always made their own. Peat use only came about as demand for pot grown plants started expanding in the early 1950's. As garden sizes shrink, we all have less & less space to create our own compost. (I'm lucky enough to have a tumbler bin, but even that doesn't keep up with my demand !)

A._Badger

Lavender_Rose wrote: »

Is Peter Seebrooks commercial involvement and links with peat companies something to do with his most unusual attitude (as far as most gardeners are concerned) towards peat?

Just a thought

So how do you account for all the other horticultural experts who use peat instead of the inferior substitutes being foisted onto us? Don't tell me - they're all in the pay of 'Big Peat'.

The usual 'Green' tactic - when short of a factual argument - smear the person with an opposing point of view.

A._Badger

sobie wrote: »

Unfortunately Peter Seabrook article in the sun is true, demand from customers is for Peat Based Composts. we sell 99% more peat based compost at our garden centre, even though I'm a strong advocator of peat free. (New horizon is lovely stuff!). IMHO That's simply because Peat Based is cheaper than peat free.

Alternatively, people buy it because because peat-based composts are better for many subjects

Rather than reaching for the usual 'if it moves tax or ban it' approach, how about first making sure an effective alternative actually exists and letting the public then make its own choice?

You may believe that New Horizon is 'lovely stuff' - many do not, among them many experts growers. I recall the late (and much missed) Geoff Hamilton banging on week after week about the delights of Coir. And we all know how that ended-up, don't we?

The fact remains that for seed sowing - particularly for fine seeds - peat-free composts are pretty poor. Ericaceous subjects are equally unhappy in substitutes.

First offer an acceptable quality peat-free compost then start from there. Anything else is like the idiocy of 'encouraging' people to use electric cars when they are unfit for all but a tiny proportion of uses.

Meanwhile, while Ireland is willing to sell the minute proportion of peat that it sells to horticulture, who not let it?