Search on this site

Landscape Industry Forum

Landscape Gardening Jobs

« Garden notebook discovered at Ickworth | Main | Phytophthora ramorum infects West Country conifers »


This is a real can of worms, but here are a few observations:
1. The 90% reduction by 2010 target was farcically optimistic when it was set, and as a result I don't think anybody in the industry took it seriously. Remember back then there weren’t any viable peat alternatives – coir had been trialled and largely found wanting, and there wasn’t anything else. A decade may seem a long time, but with trials measured in annual cycles, and no established products to trial anyway, it was never going to happen. There were (and still are) no sanctions if the target is missed, so where is the motivation to change? Mega corporations are motivated by profits, not saving the planet, so unless there is some financial gain (such as them discovering a peat free material which is cheaper than peat) or a financial penalty if targets are missed, they are bound to drag their feet.
In the same way that we need to be taxed out of the sky - have you noticed how people still rush to get on planes, even though their journeys are costing the earth? - I guess effective progress towards a peat free future will only start when government threatens the industry with a big tax stick.
2. I am still not aware of any professional ranges of growing media which come anywhere near being peat free. The composts we use are ameliorated with bark and grit, but still mostly peat. Until there are sensible peat alternatives on the professional market, the growing industry is not going to change, even if it wants to. I think this is one of the reasons that the reduction target has been split – it will be easier to persuade gardeners to stop using peat (huge amounts of which are “wasted” as soil conditioner for instance, where viable alternatives do exist) while professional growers with exacting quality standards, and businesses and livelihoods to protect, are going to take much longer to convert.
3. In our experience the gardening public do not want to go peat free – we had a brand leader peat reduced compost on sale this year alongside a straight peat product, and had immense difficulty selling it (and we did try really hard – not even a substantial price reduction on the peat-reduced product , making it the same price litre for litre as straight peat, and us taking the time to explain the benefits, would sway them). People have used peat for decades, they like it, and they’re going to take a huge amount of persuading to change.

John Walker says: "Does he really think gardeners will choose to grow in peat compost, when they become aware of what environmental damage its extraction is doing, when a range of 100 per cent peat-free and high-performing composts already exist? Do gardeners need to patronised quite so much? Perhaps he means to say: We need to keep gardeners hooked on peat for as long as possible because that’s where the money is and it’s our job to look after our members’ interests. We can use a perceived ‘threat’ to grow-your-own as a way of maintaining the status quo."

Careful, John. Litigious comments like this can land you and Landscape Juice in court.

The comments to this entry are closed.