Welcome to UK420

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more!

This message will be removed once you have signed in.


pepe16

Peat compost to be banned from 2024

125 posts in this topic

There are peat mines near me.

 

Tbh they appear quite sustainable. After an area has been harvested they re-turf it and it begins to regrow, pulling carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as it goes.

 

Maybe they're not all like that.

 

After the ban I may harvest my own.  Would be cheaper than buying compost.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post


If done well , i guess its no worse than  clear-felling and re-planting timber as a carbon sink(&profit ), ?

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Cambium said:

 

Ericaceous compost favour the ericoid group of vam's. This group dont freely associate with cannabis. If your ericacacious compost is reading 6.2, then it isnt really ericaceous compost. That needs to be in the low 5 high 4 range. It would take an unnecessary ammount of amendment to bring proper ericacious into range. Why bother when there are lots of suitable alternatives?

final mix, not the compost itself

 

organic mixes are considered an unnecessary amount of work, regardless, by most people lol that was my easiest source of good quality compost and worked well for me; once everything was added, pH was stable

 

i have mostly left that method behind in favour of hydro, that is way more effort imo

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

5 hours ago, Absurdist said:

There are peat mines near me.

 

Tbh they appear quite sustainable. After an area has been harvested they re-turf it and it begins to regrow, pulling carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as it goes.

 

Maybe they're not all like that.

 

After the ban I may harvest my own.  Would be cheaper than buying compost.

peat is extremely slow growing, that is the issue, we cannot regrow anywhere near enough to replace the vast majority of what we take (1m depth ~1000 years per various google sources)

Edited by beep
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Saddam said:

Try telling that to your plants, they look like fucking shite. lol 

 

 

maybe you should stick with spell checking? :rofl:

 

but whilst your here and are obviously such an expert, what's wrong with them? other than I haven't been poisoning  them or the environment.....

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, LokiVirandell said:

In what pot size you doing living soil ?

 

that's in a 450ltr:yep:

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Absurdist said:

There are peat mines near me.

 

Tbh they appear quite sustainable. After an area has been harvested they re-turf it and it begins to regrow, pulling carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as it goes.

 

Maybe they're not all like that.

 

After the ban I may harvest my own.  Would be cheaper than buying compost.

 

3 hours ago, Personunknown said:

If done well , i guess its no worse than  clear-felling and re-planting timber as a carbon sink(&profit ), ?

 

Peat puts on about 1mm per year. Restoration of peat bogs after they are dug up happens over a geological timeframe and are they are mpossible to restore during a human timeframe. They arent any good for sequestering new atmospheric carbon when compared against Woodlands. What they do really well is keep old carbon locked up and as soon as they are interfered with they become an emission like any fossil fuel. 

10 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Cambium said:

 

 

Peat puts on about 1mm per year. Restoration of peat bogs after they are dug up happens over a geological timeframe and are they are mpossible to restore during a human timeframe. They arent any good for sequestering new atmospheric carbon when compared against Woodlands. What they do really well is keep old carbon locked up and as soon as they are interfered with they become an emission like any fossil fuel. 

It's more so the industrial cut away bogs that will take such a long time to recover I think there is the potential for partially degraded bogs that are rewetted to start sequestering atmospheric carbon at a faster rate roughly 2 years for vegetation to establish and within 20 years become net sinks again, permanent woodlands and forestry are obviously great but new afforestation takes even longer than the wetlands to sequester more carbon than is emitted at clearing and planting.  

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, hilbilly hifi said:

It's more so the industrial cut away bogs that will take such a long time to recover I think there is the potential for partially degraded bogs that are rewetted to start sequestering atmospheric carbon at a faster rate roughly 2 years for vegetation to establish and within 20 years become net sinks again, permanent woodlands and forestry are obviously great but new afforestation takes even longer than the wetlands to sequester more carbon than is emitted at clearing and planting.  

 

Hey man, pedant alert!. I take umbridge with the term aforestation. This is bad practice and has resulted in the degradation of much of the peatland across the uplands. It is reforestation that we are after, not aforestation.

 

New native woodland has the potential to sequester 600 t co2 p/h. Peat bogs in good condition sequester about half of that p/h over the same timeframe. I've not personally come across any reliable calculations for bogs that have been rewetted. If you have any data, I'd love to see it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

4 hours ago, Personunknown said:

If done well , i guess its no worse than  clear-felling and re-planting timber as a carbon sink(&profit ), ?

 

Doesn't peat take an absolutely age to form though? 

 

E2A read the whole thread before you comment lol

Edited by MindSoup
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

I should of said i meant the amount of polution the process takes (machines ,fuel etc) but yes i was off course a bit due to the time frames of groth etc. OOps :bag:

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

54 minutes ago, Cambium said:

 

Hey man, pedant alert!. I take umbridge with the term aforestation. This is bad practice and has resulted in the degradation of much of the peatland across the uplands. It is reforestation that we are after, not aforestation.

 

New native woodland has the potential to sequester 600 t co2 p/h. Peat bogs in good condition sequester about half of that p/h over the same timeframe. I've not personally come across any reliable calculations for bogs that have been rewetted. If you have any data, I'd love to see it.

On the ground this is not what is happening though I know here in Ireland that forestry is a net emitter of carbon when it should be the opposite. To plant new native woodlands that area has to be cleared and soil disturbed to be planted which is going to release lots of carbon, I don't believe that figure of 600 t per hectare is possible right from the go or is it? I will look for some figures on the rewetted bogs I was definitely reading something recently where research had been carried out and figures were included. Happy to be corrected on my poor choice of language

 

https://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/research/climate/CCRP_15_web.pdf

Edited by hilbilly hifi
Edited to add link
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

16 minutes ago, hilbilly hifi said:

On the ground this is not what is happening though I know here in Ireland that forestry is a net emitter of carbon when it should be the opposite. To plant new native woodlands that area has to be cleared and soil disturbed to be planted which is going to release lots of carbon, I don't believe that figure of 600 t per hectare is possible right from the go or is it? I will look for some figures on the rewetted bogs I was definitely reading something recently where research had been carried out and figures were included. Happy to be corrected on my poor choice of language

 

Sorry, for some reason I never wrote that 600t p/h was over a 100 year timeframe. I agree that short rotation forestry often results in net emissions. Huge contributing factors in that are aforestation on peatland and the drainage necessary for establishment, ground disturbance during harvesting ops and end use. It's a messy picture and if all the timber from a site can be locked up in long term product (houses etc), there can be some significant long term storage. Short rotation has the potential to at least be carbon neutral and renewable, as long as there is a long term management plan outside of the human timeframe. Some of the large contractor are currently looking at their harvesting emissions cause they will be under the same offset regs as everyone else will be soon, and you cant go anywhere near +50cm deep peat these days, so thing will get better for short rotation. 

 

The new woodlands I am referring to are reforestation sites, so not clearfell conversion, where the ground disturbance has reversed any good done by the trees growing. These sites are historically deforested, more mineral soils that are now very marginal grazing/scrub and the ground prep for planting can easily be carried out sensitively. These sites can indeed capture >600t p/h by year 100 where they then reach equilibrium and additional carbon is only really sequestered in forest soils via leaf litter. 

Edited by Cambium
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

I would be very much in favour of more native woodlands by the way but I also think the restoration of wetlands and management of agricultural land have a part to play in tackling climate change issues too. Here is just a little excerpt from the link I included.

Industrial cutaway peatlands are highly degraded ecosystems that release significant quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere annually. Their restoration offers the potential to reduce CO2 emissions and to re-establish the carbon (C) sink function characteristic of natural peatlands. In this study, CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) fluxes were quantified over a 12-month period (1 January to 31 December 2009) at a rewetted industrial cutaway peatland at Bellacorick, Co. Mayo. The site was restored in 2003, and this has resulted in a persistently high water table level throughout the study site and the extensive recolonisation of the former bare peat substrate by a range of vascular and moss vegetation. These include: (i) soft-rush-Sphagnum moss-dominated communities, (ii) Sphagnum mossdominated communities, (iii) bog cotton-dominated communities, (iv) bare peat and (v) open water. For the period of the study, the vegetated communities were net annual CO2-C sinks, sequestering an average 279±246g C m-2 yr-1

 

I'm still looking for one from Australian peat lands that were rewetted and were achieving really high levels of carbon uptake I will post when I find the numbers

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

34 minutes ago, hilbilly hifi said:

279±246g C m-2 yr-1

 

So 2.5 tonne p/h  p/y. Not to be sniffed at. I would assume this slows down after early accumulation? Peak uptake in NW is about yr50 if I remember right.

 

I agree that there needs to be a place for agriculture in particular. The opportunity here though is that the UK has such a vast capacity for reforestation, that with a proper plan, productive grassland/ag land doesn't need to go to woodland. Its all the toff land that's been mismanaged as grouse shoot, or deer forest that needs to get reforested. It is definitly time for the ownership of old to give way to a much more integrated land use style of management.

Edited by Cambium
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now