Okay - first let me start off by saying that this post is NOT intended as a response to anyone.

I had never heard of coir until the recent posts on peat came up so I decided to do some research on the net. First I had to find out what it was LOL

Having done that, I did some further research and found a lot of pro-coir sites, mainly from the coir industry that of course wants you to buy their product, similarly to what some people have stated about the peat moss industry.

I did find a couple of interesting links that made me go hmmm? Now PLEASE before you bash my post, I did not go looking for these links to repute anyone's statement about peat versus coir. I merely wanted to educate myself about it and am posting these links to make a point (which will be at the end of my post).

From the Crop Physiology Laboratory at Utah State University:

Research: Coconut Coir Studies

The above link was an interesting read because it did some studies between peat and coir as it relates to a soil-less growing environment. At the bottom of the page there is a Read More link that will take you to a 10 page pdf file that goes more in depth on how they conducted the study and what plants they used.

From the How Products Are Made website:

How Coir is Made

I thought this was an interesting read because it tells you everything about coir. Background, history, manufacturing. One thing I found interesting was a section called Byproducts/Waste (scroll down the page). It talks about the water pollution that is generated by making coir, although they are trying to find treatment options.

My point in this post is whether you use peat or coir, there will always be good and bad posted about it. Use what you're comfortable using, do some research and decide what's best for you.

Val

Has anyone used coir outside of container plantings?

If any of you have concerns about global warming or the strip-mining of ancient natural resources for frivolous reasons, please consider doing some googling and deciding if you're comfortable using peat moss. If you are not concerned about those issues, don't bother.

I'm sure those who feel that mining peat bogs is harmless to the environment will also encourage you to research this on your own.

This debate has gone on for all the years that I have been on this and other gardening forums, and I think that each of us should decide A.) if certain issues that environmentalists are concerned about regarding peat mining would be of concern to you if the environmentalists are correct and B.) if researching the mining of peat reassures you that those concerns are baseless.

And, while you're googling, remember that many of us dismiss the findings of people who make their living from the peat industry.

And also remember that many of us don't feel that there is any need for peat in the garden that can't be met with other non-controversial amendments.

I specify coir netted erosion control blankets.

But for large scale soil amendments, we have a locally generated compost (Better Earth) that we can buy in bulk cheaply.

If any of you have concerns about global warming or the strip-mining of ancient natural resources for frivolous reasons, please consider doing some googling and deciding if you're comfortable using peat moss. If you are not concerned about those issues, don't bother.

Global Warming / Climate Change is a red herring. The hypothesis that industrial activity has caused an increase in global temperatures is unproven. In fact it cannot be proven from first principles. All the alarm is from computer models that predict what may happen 50 or 100 years from now. Weather pedictions two weeks hence is not accurate. How can preditions so much futher into the future have any accuracy?

The CBC documentary is fairly balanced and is quite a departure for this public broadcaster. Usually they are very pro anthropogenic caused global warming. In fact I nearly soiled myself when I first saw this documentary.

"If you are not concerned about those issues, don't bother."

Cowgirl -

I couldn't watch your video. It just wouldn't buffer right for me and while I can't speak to Global Warming because I'm still on the fence about it, I always did have a hard time buying Al Gore.

Val

Good heavens, lets all run out and use peat moss because Al Gore has a big electric bill.

lets all run out and use peat moss

Sorry - don't use it unless it's already in my potting soil :-)

I can see my thread drift wasn't appreciated. I've just always found that article to be funny and it does go directly to what Lloyd was implying about people bleating. Al Gore IMO is the biggest bleater of all.

You should know by now that I can't stay on track or topic either for that matter LOL

Val

From Snopes:

A spokesperson for the Gore family responded by noting some mitigating factors, such as the fact that the Gores' Nashville residence isn't an "average" house it's about four times larger than the average new American home built in 2006, and it essentially functions as both a residence and a business office since both Al and Tipper work out of their home. The Tennessean also noted that the Gores had been paying a $432 per month premium on their monthly electricity bills in order to obtain some of their electricity from "green" sources (i.e., solar or other renewable energy sources). Other factors (such as the climate in the area where the home is located and its size) make the Gore home's energy usage comparable to that of other homes in the same area.

The former vice-president maintained that comparing raw energy-usage figures is misleading and that he leads what he advocates, a "carbon-neutral lifestyle," by purchasing energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance out the carbon emissions produced in generating the electricity his home uses:
Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, pointed out that both Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home and she argued that "the bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And what Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint and take steps to reduce and offset it."

A carbon footprint is a calculation of the CO2 fossil fuel emissions each person is responsible for, either directly because of his or her transportation and energy consumption or indirectly because of the manufacture and eventual breakdown of products he or she uses.

The vice president has done that, Kreider argues, and the family tries to offset that carbon footprint by purchasing their power through the local Green Power Switch program electricity generated through renewable resources such as solar, wind, and methane gas, which create less waste and pollution. "In addition, they are in the midst of installing solar panels on their home, which will enable them to use less power," Kreider added. "They also use compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency measures and then they purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero."
Last updated: 28 February 2007

JPW -

You win! Al Gore's a great guy.

Val

PS - I still don't like him :-)

Composting is one part of reducing a carbon footprint! So all of us composters are taking steps towards a more carbon neutral lifestyle!

I wonder what the Gore family compost pile looks like?

I got your back, joepye.

I heart annpat!

I am resurrecting this thread, because I was reminded of it today.

I ran across an article from Ken Druse today. Ken Druse is a nationally known garden expert, award winning author etc. etc.

I have two of his "picture" books on my shelf at home. He has great photos of gardens that I love to look at. Books of his that I own are the Natural Shade Garden and the Natural Habitat Garden.

Anyway, he makes many of the same points about peat as was discussed on this thread.

Ken writes:

Peat moss is the partially decomposed remains of formerly living sphagnum moss from bogs. Because it's nearly impossible to rewet once it's dried, it repels water and makes a terrible surface mulch. As a soil amendment, which is what the baled product is mostly sold for, peat moss is also a poor choice. It breaks down too fast, compressing and squeezing air out of the soil, creating an unhealthy condition for plant roots. Peat moss can be a useful growing medium for containers, however, when lightened with a drainage material like perlite.

The biggest problem with peat moss is that it's environmentally bankrupt.

First, I've never heard of this person but that is not surprising since I don't garden.

But I do have a couple of observations;

Would printing numerous copies (thousands perhaps?) of his thirteen different books utilizing paper, cardboard, glue, ink etc, then shipping these books all over the country (maybe several countries for all I know) burning fossil fuels also be considered to be environmentally bankrupt?

I also see he travels a fair bit on the lecture circuit (I wonder what he charges?), I suppose he travels by environmentally friendly bicycle to avoid the fossil burning aircraft.

Do I hear bleating in the background?

Lloyd

Lloyd, are you changing your name to strawman?

I just posted the link because I like Ken Druse... and I thought other gardeners may know him and like him as well.

Of course, they may know Druse and hate him too.

Lloyd,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Your standards are a bit high for me. I hope that you, too, live your life in complete and unwavering consistancy with everything that you believe to be right or have the audacity to say you believe is right.

By the way, I very much admire your compost sifter.

Ah.

My mistake then, I thought it was a commentary on peat moss and it being environmentally bankrupt. I can't imagine what could have possibly given me that impression. My bad.

Lloyd

P.S. Call me what you like, I've been called worse.

Ad_hominem

Tu_quoque

There, now those are in nice clickable links for ya.

Thanks, I'm kinda proud of both of my sifters.

Lloyd

P.S. I have no standards, I burn way more than my share of fossil fuels.

Peat moss is great stuff. The only disadvantage I've experienced is having to buy it. I have very poor sand soil...I've tilled in lots of peat mixing in lime. All my veggies seem to love it.I know everyone says peat has no nutrients, but whatever it has my plants seem to thrive in it. I fertilize with the fish/seaweed emulsion.

Maybe someone can explain why coir produced with water pollution as a side effect and shipped all the way from India is a good environmental choice.

I don't use either peat moss or coir, just asking.

coir is just an overpriced boutique alternative...Canadian bogs grow more peat each year than is harvested.. If I lived near one I'd rent a big dump truck and take advantage of it.

Totally amazing to me how the hackles of the pro peat moss people get raised when one suggests that peat moss is a non renewable resource and how they will insist that people who have a vested interest in selling that product are correct and many others only concerned about the environment and its destruction are wrong.
Is open mountain coal mining wrong? According to the coal industry it is not and there is no envrionemental harm done and in fact when the finish peeling a mountain in West Virginia apart they but it back together just like it was before and plant the same plants on the now restored mountain. Many people that live there tell a different story. So who is right those with a vested interest in drinking clean water and not seeing the streams that flow through the mountains filled with rubble or those that mine the coal to sell so they can make money?
For those that live in areas with lots of deciduous trees, do you spend your money on peat moss? If so why and what do you do with the renewable resource at hand every fall?
Burn those leaves and cause more pollution? Pay someone to haul them away someplace where piled up they contribute to the pollution of the gound water?

If you don't respect peat bogs, which are ancient, and which cannot be "recreated", despite the industry's claims to the contrary, is there any unique environmental feature in the world that you do respect?

I have great respect for the geolopalent... (Oh, heck! What was that word?) I have great respect for the ancient soil in a bog, its features, the species that depend on it for survival, and I have great respect for the archeological history within peat bogs.

On what grounds do peat yea-sayers defend the mining of something so ancient for a "garden product" that is so unnecessary?

I mean this somewhat seriously, is there nothing sacred? Peat users should come out and admit it, if that is their position, "Yes. There is no square inch of ancient soil that I think should be protected. We can scrape it all down and sell it to home gardeners, of all people, then make some more."

I really didn't mean to start the entire debate all over again.

There were similarities to the Druse article to this thread and I thought I would share it.

There is no need to be offended or defend your use of peat to me or Mr. Druse.

My mistake then, I thought it was a commentary on peat moss and it being environmentally bankrupt. I can't imagine what could have possibly given me that impression. My bad.

That comment gives me the impression that you didn't even read the article. Yet, you somehow felt compelled to place your snarky anti-environmentalist comment. PUH-leez, perhaps you could read the article and then comment on that... if you don't have time to read the article, then don't make the time to comment.

***sigh***

I'm glad you took the time to sigh. 8-P

I couldn't waste a lot of my time. I'm home now....

Quote from me up thread:

"I have no intention of arguing over the sustainability of compost, peat, coir or any other such product. I have found that most (not all) people who bleat about sustainability are generally hypocrites and waste plenty of energy and resources on stuff that others would find wasteful. (much like the blender issue, to some it's a waste, to some it isn't, live with it)

It's a zero sum game trying to discuss it with an attitude that what someone else does is wasteful and what I do isn't. Given the time I can always find ways that I would consider a waste of something in anyones life.

If people enjoy attacking the peat issue over the environmental aspect, let 'em, IMO they are full of crap for the most part but I acknowledge their right to bleat away."

I have seen nothing to change my mind yet and merely pointed out areas that the person you had linked to, might be considered by some, to be wasting resources unnecessarily.

As far as reading the article, your impression is in error, I read it, and I wholeheartedly agree with the authors point about most people not really knowing much about peat.

Which "snarky anti-environmentalist comment"? I think maybe you might have confused something with my snarky fake-environmentalist comment.

As far as peat, I don't use it so I am neither offended nor defensive. Nor do I use coir. Although I must admit to being perplexed at the suggestion of shipping something from across an ocean and halfway across a continent when peat can be had less than 10 miles from me. Doesn't seem so environmentally friendly to me.

In any event I prefer leaves and straw over either of them and I choose not to crucify someone for choosing peat or coir as they may have their own reasons/situation unknown to me. But that's just me.

Lloyd

Oh, I totally missed your point about FAKE environmentalists.

So what you are really saying is that anyone who earns money by authoring a book or taking a speaking tour, is a fake environmentalist....

gee that point went right over my head.

I guess everyone should just use the internet as print and face to face communications are just too unsustainable.

Ruth Stout sold a lot of books and spoke a lot too. She was such a hypocrite too!

Actually your interpretation of what I said would be incorrect JPW.

And I don't know who Ruth Stout is, but if she chooses to bring up bogus environmental issues to beat people over the head with then perhaps I might just call her a hypocrite. Does she bring up bogus environmental issues and beat people over the head with them? Doesn't seem she'd be able to sell a lot of books being like that.

Off to wash dishes at a Legion dinner so don't get upset if it takes me a while to get back to any other incorrect interpretations you might come up with.

Toodles.

Lloyd

One man's bogus environmental issue is another man's precious ecosystem.

And because that other person doesn't share your opinion of the value of a certain ecosystem, then they are bogus hypocrites?

I think I am getting it now.

Thanks for bringing this up, I just read the whole thing. I had never considered where peat comes from but the case against its use is clear. I will not buy peat again.

If harvesting peat moss destroys ancient biotopes then there is no excuse to use it when there are alternatives. Even if we can replace the actual peat, we cannot replace the biotope that developed over millenia.

A soil amendment is not important enough to harm something like that.

We can't even make a dent in Canada's peat supply. Peat is growing and replenishing at a rate many times higher than it's being harvested..If it was used in North America for hundreds of years as a source of fuel (as done in Ireland) then maybe worrying would be warranted. But that's not the case.

yup, case closed. No further debate needed.

It doesn't matter if peat CAN or IS being replenished, if harvesting it from ancient peat bogs disrupts the local ecosystem, then we should not do it since there are many other soil amendments available, many of them free depending on where you live.

If there was peat moss that was sold certified as the product of "second growth" peat bogs, it would be different, but as far as I know, there is know way to know what type of bog the peat comes from.

Once the local ecosystem is destroyed, it will not return in our lifetime even if the peat is renewed.

You can clear cut a stand of ancient redwoods, wiping out the local flora and fauna, and then replant all the trees. Have you replaced what was destroyed? Not at all. New trees are there, but it will take thousands of years for the forest to return to what it once was.

It would be one thing if we were harvesting something really important out of these bogs. But a soil amendment? Not worth it.

Ancient peat bogs? I think there's too much romance being added to this.

JPW, I am unable to answer your query, I have no clue what is meant by "bogus hypocrites". Sorry, maybe my lack of formal education coming into play again.

But if I had to make a WAG, I don't get the impression that you are getting it now. Could just be me though.

And as an aside, I will not buy peat nor coir either.

Lloyd

P.S. Off to the Legion again. TTFN

Really Swanz? At a depth of 2.2 meters, one of Maine's peat bogs is approximately 5300 years old. At twice that depth, it dates to 7000 BCE. How old is old enough for you to classify something as ancient?

Every element surrounding us is recycled, and ancient in some form or another. The bottom line is that when harvested it does not take that long to replenish and our hemisphere creates many times more each year than is harvested.Anyone doing honest research will know this. Even Elliot Coleman who is an uber organic and ardent environmentalist discusses this in his book.. He did extensive research on the matter.

Its not the peat that ins't replenished in reclaimed bogs, its magnitude and diversity of insects, the amphibians, and other microflora and microflauna that missing in a reclaimed bog.

I guess it's all a matter of perspective. If the active harvesting of peat for horticultural purposes of the .02% of the total Canadian peat reserves causes greater environmental alarm and concern than than the 15% that has been lost to development through deforestation, urbanization, industrialization and agriculture, then something is radically wrong with the underlying logic.

This will continue to be a debate that will have little resolution. Diehard environmentalists will continue to insist that horticultural peat is a non-renewable resource despite all evidence to the contrary. And while they consider this evidence faulty simply because it is produced by those involved in the peat industry - for scientific as well as commercial interests - does not negate the fact that those involved are the only ones bothered to complile and produce the statistics that represent this evidence -- all the rest is merely suppostion and innuendo repeated ad nauseum. One doesn't often hear from these same folks about their boycotting of Canadian lumber and agricultural products that have a much greater impact on the demise of peat bogs - they pick their arguments to suit their case, as do most of the vast uninformed and uneducated.

It's still a matter of personal choice. If for whatever reason - based on ill-formed logic or otherwise - one chooses not to use peat, that's fine. But to lambaste those who do based on the faulty logic they advocate that the use of horticultural Canadian peat is somehow radically and irretrievably altering the environment is to ignore their own personal impact that has a far greater adverse affect.

Are you seriously comparing agricultural to peat mining?

Because we are losing so many habitats to development, it makes it even more important not disrupt ecosystems for something as unnecessary as a soil amendment. There are plenty of other available soil amendments, that are more sustainable.

Are you seriously comparing agricultural to peat mining?

I am comparing the amount of peat habitat that is lost to other uses/development, including agricultural activities, to that which is disturbed by harvesting peat for horticultural purposes - 15% versus .02%. It's a pretty significant comparison. And the correct term is 'harvesting', not 'mining', as the acreage IS replanted/reseeded with peat virtually immediately as it is harvested, just like any other crop.

With the exception of the recyclable nature of compost/vegetative waste and the continual production of animal manures, virtually ALL other soil amendments lack sustainability or renewability, most much more so than peat. Disruption of ecosystems is an inevitable, if regrettable, fact of human life on this planet. Why the relatively minute amount associated with horticultural peat harvesting causes such an uproar when faced with the widespread destruction of habitats as the result of logging/farming of the rain forests, the North American timber industry, our mindless overpopulation, our love affair with vehicles and the fossil fuels they require and the constant manipulation and alteration of all aspects of our environment seems more than slightly misplaced. At least the Canadian peat industry is being carefully managed and controlled and habitat restoration is a paramount concern. Can we say that about any other part of our wanton destruction of the globe?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

The logic that because habitat destruction occurs from other reasons on a larger scale, that we shouldn't do things to conserve, no matter how small they are, doesn't make sense to me.

And yes, agriculture is a form of development. If not done sustainably, it is as destructive to the environment as many other of types of development.

These guys are a fairly large farm, I worked for a local farmer who bought some standing alfalfa from that area back in the 70's. Now I think they are more into the peat sod. They claim they ship peat soil as far away as Texas.

Here is another farmer up there that does the same thing. There are several farms that do this now.

Stead is about an hour away from me.

Lloyd

This company is exploring the feasibility of using peat to replace coal in thermal plants. It is claimed that peat is better then coal environmentaly.

Lloyd

gardengal, the Canadian Resource Counsel refers to the 'mining' of peat moss, as do other peat mining facilities.

I'm curious if you think that calling people ignorant, uninformed or uneducated proves your argument? I feel like after you call someone one of your dismissive terms, you dust off your hands, and say, "Well, there! Case closed." It doesn't take 12 minutes researching the topic to find that a lot of scientists, horticulturalists, and environmentalists hold an opposing view to yours. Are we all less informed, less educated than you?

And because I eat food, drive a car, and heat my home with oil, my stand against the mining of peat is moot? You're smarter than that, gardengal. That argument is beneath you.

One thing I thought interesting about the Druse article is that many of the gardeners that he talked to that were using peat weren't even using it for its intended purpose. Certainly those people wouldn't be adversely affected if they stopped using peat.