Best and cheapest compost?

Lavender_Rose

Hmmm. I get the feeling you are anti anything that is perceived as being 'green'. Take a look at your posts and I think you come across as rather aggressive.

Are you Jeremy Clarkson?

Leif

Lavender_Rose wrote: »

Hmmm. I get the feeling you are anti anything that is perceived as being 'green'. Take a look at your posts and I think you come across as rather aggressive.

Are you Jeremy Clarkson?

I agree.

He referred disparagingly to people who first raised concerns about damage to sensitive habitats - which was a real concern - as 'peat worriers'.

A._Badger wrote: »

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.

Somewhat ironically he responds with a generalisation about all 'Greens', and characterises anyone who argues with him as a 'Green'.

I have tried to find a source linking Seabrook to the peat industry, and all I could find was a few online comments. Does someone have a source?

Apparently the RHS, National Trust and Monty Don, amongst others, advise using alternatives. Many gardeners use peat for the simple reason that for seeds it is better.

It may well be that some areas of peat are not sensitive, and can be harvested. But that is not the same as saying that all peat is fine. Unfortunately we do not know where the peat in peat based compost comes from. If it was regulated, then I might buy it.

The following comes from an online article in support of peat extraction:

"Most of the land where the peat is, has little or no alternative use."

Link here:

http://ph13.healthy-public.co.uk/forum/42-natural-environment/938-the-peat-debate-how-on-earth-did-we-get-there

That statement is false unless you consider sensitive wildlife habitats to be of no value.

I have seen statements, here and elsewhere, that peat bogs can be restored, and that is used as justification for peat extraction. Is there an example of peat extraction followed by restoration, or is this a case of "could, but don't"?

Also, the statement is often made that peat extraction is sustainable because more peat is laid down than is extracted. No doubt that is true, because there are large areas of peat in places like Siberia. But it will take centuries or more for a specific area to repair itself. So the question is whether or not that area is of value. The Scottish bogs are of value, which is why the RSPB buys as much as possible, but some is lost to forestation. Or is the RSPB and its 1 million members an extremist green organisation?