It's certainly having an effect on us at this time (click on the above "Global Warming" heading - if you have a real interest in the subject). Before I go further, I feel I should qualify my following comments below by making it clear to the readers of this news-letter's that I personally am a devout organic grower, and for many years I've been an advocate of clean, fresh & healthy home-grown food. I recycle and compost all of our family's household waste - including materials for construction and repair on my plot. I'm passionate about the heath and safety of the food I grow. I don't use ANY chemical insecticides, herbicides or inorganic fertilisers. I'm also VERY passionate about cleaning up our act when it comes to pollution, wild-life welfare and the way we commercially produce our food. I am NOT however a hippy, a new age traveller or tree-hugging weirdo, with little scientific knowledge and even less common sense, who goes around trying to look like a native North American! I believe the Earth's climate IS changing but that it's a natural cyclic phenomenon with global warming and greenhouse gas levels fluctuating as I believe they always have. Man DOES contribute heavily but I am TOTALLY unconvinced by the apocalyptical predictions and theories of the climate change activists, that generally believe man is solely responsible for these changes. I'm still not convinced that it's all of man's fault. Sure we contribute an amount - most creatures (and plants - especially when they decay) do, in varying degrees. In the overall BIG picture of things, our contribution is a gnat's wee in the ocean. In fact the combined Methane output from all the herbivores (cows & other grass-munchers etc. to you and me) of the earth is probably just as big a contributor to the so-called "greenhouse effect". Actually it's a little arrogant & conceited of us - as humans - to take the accolade for what is nature's natural cycle of things. A bit like some tree-hugging allotmenteers who leave weeds & sprouting broccoli plants to flower - to help the world's eco-systems to recover and to encourage bees! A huge contribution that, when you look at the vegetation that's on the earth! So one flowering broccoli and a clump of nettles is going to do the trick? Yeah - right! HARDLY - even if every human on earth did it. Man is conceited enough to think like that though, we have difficulty with proportionality. Do these people actually sit down and think hard about how big the south American rain-forests alone really are? Now I wonder what proportion of that mass of vegetation a clump of nettles or 3 broccoli plants in flower actually represents? Even if you multiplied that clump by 7 billion - the current population of the earth. No more so is this fuzzy logic coming to the fore than with the argument against the use of peat in gardens. Suffice to say that I don't think I'm the only one cursing "non peat based composts" when my seedlings fail to appear! Now that I've got started on that one see the heading IS OUR USE OF PEAT DESERVING OF THE SCORN IT ATTRACTS? Below. In only the last 1000 years we've gone from ice age to a balmy warm period for a few hundred years during the middle ages. It's often called The Medieval Warm Period (MWP)/ Medieval Climate Optimum, or Medieval Climatic Anomaly which was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region, it lasted from about AD 950 to 1250. It was followed by a cooler period in the North Atlantic termed the Little Ice Age. So after going back to a mini ice age things are now warming up again . What we are experiencing is the cyclic nature of Mother Earth's climate, that's CONSTANTLY changing, but with such minuscule life spans and the past inability to monitor over a prolonged period (we've only been doing it for a few DECADES), WE run away with the apocryphal notion that we have destroyed our earth! Loony tunes I conclude!. These phenomena were in existence when man's only contribution to C02 emission was smoke from his tiny camp fire and flatulence from eating too much woolly mammoth meat & brassicas like sprouts - as a so called "hunter-gatherer". Right I've stepped off my soap box now - back to the news-letter!
ODD SPRING - "ODDER" GERMINATION RATES! What a month May was! I've lived, worked and slept the lottie for the whole month! NOT because I really wanted to be THAT engrossed and obsessive, but simply because we've had such a rubbish spring I've had to pile March, April & May work into 4 weeks! It's gone from winter to summer (March) back to winter (snow in April) & then FINALLY a cold windy "summer" in May - who the hell cancelled our spring? The worst bit in May was that scorching wind again. I really get annoyed at that sting in the tail. Just as you're ready to harden things off they turn brown and shrivel up in the sun and chilly wind. It doesn't help being located by the sea - those scorchers blow in straight off the Atlantic and across Ceredigion Bay then straight across my allotment! Added to the natural problems is the fact that I'm only running on three cylinders because of my general health these days, so the work gets done at a much slower rate than in the past. Even though I'm working a lot slower, I get a lot more tired, so I've not had time to do anything meaningful - apart from my allotment for the whole month! This year has been a total disaster, not just for me, but a lot of the other allotment growers on our site that have experienced the same problems. Seeds refusing to germinate, others dying off after germinating, some growing weakly - just not a very good season I fear! Add to that 3 record level June floods over a fortnight and it's quite a recipe for disaster! As a rule - peas are usually grown by little children in school, with simple success. Me - a supposed veteran vegetable gardener with nearly 40 years experience nearly gave up on them this year! First the mouse (now deceased) dispatched four trays full, with 20 peas in each tray. Only ONE pea got away, it's now quietly growing on it's own by the fence that should be holding up around a hundred of it's brothers & sisters. The next batch just rotted in the compost on the poly-tunnel staging, as did the third batch! I'm now in the humiliating position of having to make do with other's left overs! Although by now I have put rows in directly into the soil - fingers crossed! Many of the melon, pumpkin, courgette and cucumber seeds have done the same - just rotted in their pots before germinating. IS OUR USE OF PEAT DESERVING OF THE SCORN IT ATTRACTS?
I've used Levington compost for years, it was a family run business that you could rely on. Good products and usually fair prices. It was named after a pretty little village in Suffolk. But from now on Mr Levington has off-loaded his last bag on to me! He can stuff his compost where the sun doesn't shine! I should elaborate on that, in fact it's NOT Mr Levington's fault - he & his family, after many years of establishing & running the company no longer own it. It was taken over by THE SCOTTS COMPANY (UK) LIMITED a "sell muck and make big profits" company from the US (echoes of the Cadbury/ Kraft takeover smell here? Apparently Kraft now use milk from Poland - not UK farmers' milk - for their "Cadbury's" chocolate and it's so dirty it blocks the filters in their factory!) Anyway that's another story! In February of 2011 Israel Chemicals Ltd. (ICL) took over The Scott Company's FERTILISERS division. ICL has quite a reputation itself! It seems Scotts (makers of Miracle Gro) still supply the compost under the banner of Everris. And it gets more complex by the minute. The top and bottom of it is - when you buy Levington's today, it's NOT the guaranteed product it used to be in the past. This "non-peat" rubbish has appeared since the big debate about organic/ inorganic material from the anti peat use brigade came to the fore. I notice the Levington bags say the content holds 25% more water and has a tick next to "Low Peat" content, it also says "organic non-peat" material added to it. What exactly is that supposed to mean? Since then I've purchased more bags of compost - first from Aldi (in desperation) and then from Brondesbury Park Garden Centre, in Aberteifi (Cardigan). Surprise, surprise both offerings are peat based & fantastic stuff. It puts the Levington trash that I bought to shame. I say "trash" because a pattern is emerging here. Nearly all the other gardeners that have had bad germination results on our allotment site have used exactly the same compost. It was on offer at our local Farmers Co-operative Country Store (210 Litres for £11.99). Jack's Magic is approximately 1.5p/ litre more - but worth every farthing of the extra!
A simple Rule of thumb: "IF MAN MADE IT DON'T EAT IT!" (or anything that grows in it!) So whilst we're on this fascinating subject I've done some more research and I've documented my findings below. You'll be GOB-SMACKED (as my Scouser wife would say!). It also makes you blush a bit as you realise how gullible we - the general public - really are. In fact we're almost as gullible as our politicians! Most of them have gone from posh school, to posh college and then the House of Commons, without spending 5 minutes out in the real world getting life experiences and cultivating a bit of common sense! Easy meat for any unscrupulous lobbyist! READ ON . . . . Gardening Which? magazine have brought out a critical report on peat free potting compost. Each year they trial 20 plus bags of compost and peat compost always come out best. Not surprising, as peat is an ideal growing medium for most plants. In line with UK government advice, many "good" horticultural supply companies run a reduced peat-use policy for their nursery stock production - because they have to be seen to be politically correct in the running of their business. Following extensive trials, it now appears that about 40% peat is currently used as a planting medium. Peat: what is so good about it?
The Peat Debate: how on earth did we get there? I believes that the environmental pressure on reduction of peat use by the horticultural industry is valid in protecting lowland UK peat bogs as few such habitats still exist. The campaign, began in the 1908s by David Bellamy, was successful in protecting many remaining lowland peat habitats. David Bellamy has been asked about the way the peat debate has evolved. He is frankly appalled at the current attempts to ban peat use and completely opposes this. Somehow, the worthwhile protection of these lowland peat bogs has lead, almost completely without justification, to a national campaign casting peat use as 'sinful' or morally wrong. There are several arguments put forward to justify the enforced reduction in use of peat but most of these are dubious at best and often factually inaccurate. 1. The main claim levelled is that peat is a 'non-renewable' like oil. This is simply not true. If carefully harvested from live peat bogs, peat is a fully renewable resource. Anyone can see this for themselves in countries such as Sweden. Here peat is grown and harvested rather like tree plantations. Scientists have estimated that the annual growth in peat far exceeds the amount that is extracted each year, so it is in essence a completely renewable resource. 2. It is claimed is that the world is somehow running short of peat. The area from Norway to Siberia is, rather simply put, the world's largest peat bog. A fraction of 1% of the reserves have probably been extracted. On a global scale peat-land is not rare nor threatened, the earth is known to generate around 600 million cubic metres per year but only a maximum 200 million cubic metres is extracted each year. So unlike coal or oil, the amount is increasing year on year. Most of the land where the peat is, has little or no alternative use. Compared to farming, fishing, golf courses, or any other major land-use, peat production which is carefully managed, is a sound, sustainable and 'green' activity. Looking at Scotland for example, around 50% of the land is peat covered. 3. The threat to rare ecosystems, such as UK. lowland peat-land habitats. In the UK peat-land is not threatened, peat producers have already agreed not to seek or to extract from areas with a conservation value. Peat Extraction for Horticulture is NOT the main cause of damage to the UK peat lands. In fact, since 1960 only just over 500 hectares have been introduced for peat production whereas 95,000 hectares have been lost to forestry. The peat-lands of Great Britain cover an area of some 17 500 km2, most in north and west. Scotland has c. 68%, England 23% and Wales 9%. There are about 1 700 km2 of peat-land in Northern Ireland, mostly located in the western half of the province. In Great Britain, commercialised peat extraction takes place on only some 5 400 ha (equivalent to about 0.3% of total peat-land). Almost all peat industry output is for the horticultural market; there is however still quite extensive (but unquantified) use of peat as a domestic fuel in the rural parts of Scotland and Northern Ireland. 4. Carbon Sink. Peat bogs soak up carbon dioxide. So does farmland. It is claimed that if we harvest peat this CO2 will be lost. But in fact this is not the case. Peat lands used for extracting peat can be quite easily restored. Draining the peat bogs can be reversed. The Department of the Environment, Peat Producers Association and many other conservation bodies are all working together to restore the peat lands back to nature. The carbon sink impact of peat extraction is negligible if the land is correctly managed. This is simply a matter of legislation. 'Temporal studies of peat-lands reveal that they may act as CO2 sinks in some years and sources in others, depending on climate. Emissions of CH4 and N2O are similarly variable in space and time.' From 'peat-lands and Climate change'. Every time a farmer ploughs a field CO2 is lost into the atmosphere. But we don't seem to be advocating the banning of ploughing.The UK's Unilateral Approach No other European Country has taken the steps that the UK Government are advocating. There is clearly no perceived problem in the rest of Europe using peat for horticulture. I have contacted nursery associations in Holland, France, Germany, Scandinavia and Italy and all are perfectly free to use peat in horticulture. This means that UK producers are going to be unfairly penalised if Dutch and German growers are allowed to carry on using peat in their container production. U.K. Governments dont appear to be proposing the banning of importation of plants grown in peat, which is the only fair way to proceed if they wont allow UK producers to grow in peat. So how come the UK alone has a fully fledged anti-peat lobby which has chosen to use all sorts of rather underhand propaganda to further its aims. Very few of its arguments stand up to scrutiny. It might come as a surprise to learn that horticulture accounts for only about 2% of peat use. Most peat is burned for fuel. World-wide it may be that as little as 0.1% of the world's peat is being used in horticulture. But UK environmentalists are unfairly pinning everything onto horticulture. Is the Proposed Peat ban legal Under EC law? To find out a letter was sent to Ian Hudghton MEP (the MEP with responsibility for EC Trade). He contacted the European Commission. A reply was received from Antoni Tajani, President of the European Commission. In the letter Mr Tajani states: ‘In general, the Commission supports national measures aiming at environmental protection. . . . However national measures restricting the use of a given product could constitute an obstacle to intra-EU trade. In order to avoid such obstacles, directive 98/34/EC2 establishes a control mechanism by which member states planning to adopt technical regulations are obliged to notify them at the draft stage to the Commission, which informs other member states and stakeholders. This allows the Commission, the other member states and economic operators to analyse the planned legislation and its compatibility with EC law. So far the Commission has not received formal notification of any such proposal from the UK authorities.’ So for the time being, it seems that the UK Government maybe in contravention of EC trade legislation. 5 Deliberate or Ignorant Misinformation. The anti peat use lobby seems happy to publish information which is simply not accurate it is then copied, or miscopied by garden writers perpetuating the false information. For example Joe Hashman's otherwise useful book Pocket Guide to the Edible Garden states: 'During the latter part of the 20th century 94% of British peat lands were destroyed by the horticulture industry.' His source for this is a Friends of the Earth claim that ‘less than six per cent of Britain's original lowland raised peat bog habitat remains in a near natural condition’. The Friends of the Earth statistics refer to lowland peat bogs only. Most peat in the UK is in highland peat bogs. And most of the lowland peat bogs were destroyed by draining them for farmland and forestry and not for horticulture. Joe Hashman has apologised for this error. But it won't stop this information being spread around. The Best way Forward for peat use in horticulture Despite some rather foolish targets for the reduction of peat use in horticulture, only about 4% of UK retail sales are for peat alternatives. Peat-based multi-purpose compost sales have remained pretty static. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has changed the classification of peat from a 'fossil fuel' to a 'renewable biomass resource' in recognition that peat can indeed by harvested and cultivated sustainably. I personally believe that sustainable peat production for horticulture is fully justifiable and the anti-peat lobby are guilty of exaggeration and misinformation. Particularly in propagation, there is no substitute for peat. And many of the alternatives, such as coir, are have very unsound environmental credentials: this is 3rd world organic matter which should be used by local farmers, not shipped expensively round the world, in order to assuage middle class guilt. Dont fall for it, it really is not sound 'green' sense. Are peat free composts any good? The dilemma for the gardener is that peat based composts are significantly better than peat free composts for sowing seeds and potting on young plants. Time after time trials reveal this to be true. Which reported that composts with at least 50% peat were far better than peat free composts in 2010. Which compost trials Beechgrove Garden trials in 2010 growing potatoes in containers found poor results with peat free composts compared to composts containing at least 50% peat. (Search the fact-sheets on their website for the results) Beechgrove Garden The RHS trials published in January 2011 showed the poor results germinating seedlings and potting on young plants most peat alternatives, including loam, wood fibre and coir particularly for plants with very small seeds. Peat free composts tend to be inconsistent, unstable and often require the addition of extra food and trace elements and many gardeners have complained to me of the poor results with peat free composts. Coir, often used as a replacement for peat is shipped from Sri Lanka which cannot be good for the environment! Jumping on the bandwagon The RHS, National Trust and other influential organisations, as well as TV presenters such as Monty Don should have a little more courage than simply to jump on this spurious bandwagon: instead they should appraise themselves of the facts and have the courage to portray both sides of the argument. Rather than condemn peat they should explain the facts and defend the sustainable and sensible use of peat. At the moment the only reduction in peat seems to be in sales of bags marked 'peat'. If the bag says 'multipurpose compost' or 'ericaceous compost' it sells as well as ever. What do such bags contain? At least 90% peat of course. Many well informed gardeners and writers such as Peter Seabrook and the best selling author Dr Hessayon (author of the 'Expert' series) take a pragmatic view. Dr Hessayon writes: 'don't use peat as for overall soil improvement- it is not efficient and garden compost and manure will do a much better job. However moss peat has a role to play in planting and seed composts where there are no substitutes of equal merit' (The Bedside Book of the Garden) Peat and the Environment in Scandinavia Swedish peat-lands and Swedish peat constitute a natural resource that renews itself through steady and relentless plant growth. The peat industry's extraction of peat, 4-5 million cubic meters per year, is barely a quarter of a year's growth. Between one and two thousandth of the peat-covered ground is made use of for the present. Additionally, thanks to the fact that new drainage has practically stopped in agriculture and forestry operations, it is now highly likely that the total area of peat grounds is also increasing in size. Supervision Before a peat extraction operation can be approved in Sweden, the county administration or alternatively the environmental protection agency, perform a careful examination of the site. This is done to evaluate the proposed operation's impact on the area with regards to public benefit as well as the environmental effects. The operations that are finally approved will have been judged suitable and not in conflict with legitimate preservation interests. In addition, extensive rules apply to the activities. Svenska Torvproducentföreningen Torsgatan 12, 111 23 Stockholm, Tel 08-441 70 73, Fax 08-441 70 89 See website for further information on Scandinavian peat. http://www.peatsociety.org/index.php?id=280From the CHA website: Peter Seabrook has attacked the RHS for its latest edict, a ban on the use of peat at its shows. He writes 'Who is it wandering the corridors at Vincent Square that sees fit to act as our universal conscience'. He discusses the poverty in Lithuania where peat is one of the few natural resources, and a renewable resource. Seabrook also attacked Kew and the National Trust 'whose money-wasting exercise marketing peat-free compost was a scandal' (Hort Week 6th Jan). Commenting on the sale of peat-free plants, Follyfield Nurseries’ joint owner Fred Chapman said ‘Not just bodies like the National Trust but sheds and supermarkets are pushing these plants as a sales gimmick’ (Hort Week 20th Jan). Alan Shaw, of the Growing Media Association, said that he welcomed initiatives from large organisations like the National Trust and RSPB that help to expand the UK gardening market. He wrote: ‘The fact that they are peat free is in reality of lesser importance. Most manufacturers of growing media have offered peat free options for some time now and peat free plants can fill a valid niche market’. ‘The trend in the mass market, however, is towards gradual peat reduction’ (Grower 20th Jan). An increasing number of growers are disputing the criticalness of the peat shortage (Hort Week 27th Jan). Are peat reduction targets of 90% achievable or desireable? The Government’s Peat Working Group initiated the search for suitable materials and this was recognised by re-naming the group in 2005 as the Horticultural Growing Media Forum (HGMF), whose focus was on delivering the peat reduction targets. Some parts of the industry have made significant progress, with the three large national retailers all achieving 50% peat replacement in their bagged product ranges. Partial dilution is becoming the norm for previously all-peat products and several manufacturers have now invested in wood fibre production plants and/or green composting facilities. Unfortunately in the UK, even with the HGMF in place, conflicts of interests, technical problems, increasing costs, reluctance and apathy have all contributed to slow progress towards achieving the 90% target for 2010. Mires and Peat, Volume 3 (2008), Article 08, http://www.mires-and-peat.net/, ISSN 1819-754X Experts pour scorn on Defra peat research for failing to reach meaningful conclusion by Matthew Appleby Horticulture Week 30 July 2010Growing-media experts have questioned Defra's latest peat research on the carbon footprint of growing media. The report, from University of Warwick HRI scientist Dr Rob Lillywhite, dismisses greenhouse gas emissions as a reason for reducing peat use, preferring the existing drivers of non-renewability and potential as a carbon sink. It states: "In terms of total greenhouse gas emissions, the life cycle assessment approach supports the use of UK and Irish peat, and coir as growing media material. "However, if the carbon neutrality of short-term materials and potential sequestration is taken into account, then the opposite is true and compost, timber products and coir are the preferred materials. These opposing conclusions suggest that further policy work is required." It concludes: "The major driver for reduced peat use should remain its 'non-renewability' and potential for long-term carbon storage rather than its emissions of greenhouse gases." The report highlights difficulties in assessing greenhouse gas emissions of organic materials because of a lack of data and confusion over whether to use weight or volume reporting units. It uses weight, which gives peat a poorer rating. The industry uses volume. Growing Media Association (GMA) manager Tim Briercliffe said: "The GMA was included in the steering group for this project but expressed its concerns about the methodology and assumptions made throughout the process. The project was overambitious and set out to collate published information that unfortunately never really existed. "The report acknowledges that frankly the project was unable to reach meaningful conclusions and the GMA would urge readers to approach it with caution. This work set out to understand important questions that the industry had raised. Unfortunately, we do not believe that this report enlightens the debate." Former GMA chair Jamie Robinson added: "Like so much of the CO2 debate, there are a lot of questions on the methodology used and the conclusions are ambiguous - you can basically choose your outcome. I don't think that it takes the peat reduction debate any further forward." But Vital Earth managing director Steve Harper said: "I think you need to take offsetting into consideration. Ultimately, if peat is undisturbed it is a carbon sink. If dug, it creates a footprint. If you can divert green and food waste from landfill, you reduce its impact on the planet (by not creating methane) and reduce waste and create a truly sustainable product." A Defra representative said: "The research indicates that alternatives to peat are likely to have similar or lower greenhouse gas emissions associated with their production compared to peat - although the report does not consider specific products on the market, which are usually a blend of different materials. "We are considering the development of a future policy to further reduce the horticultural use of peat. All evidence, including this newly published research, will feed into the development of the policy." - The final report is available from www.defra.gov.uk Comparing C02 emissions for peat to other growing media UK peat greenhouse gas emissions (CO2) Extraction & harvest 36kg Processing 24kg Transport 42-123kg End of life 543kg Carbon storage -136kg Total 509-590kg
Now compare that figure with these:
Total CO2 emissions from other growing media Green compost 12-93kg Coir 113-350kg Bark -82-5kg Wood fibre -56-145kg Perlite 736-817kg Vermiculite 772-853kg DEFRA PUBLICATION Consultation findings June 2011 This includes the following milestones:
The taskforce will be chaired by Dr. Alan Knight OBE and will include representatives from retailers, growing media manufacturers, growers and environmental organisations. It will have a clear remit to foster a partnership approach focussing on identifying and addressing supply chain issues, exploring all available measures to deliver our ambition and determining the criteria against which the policy will be reviewed. Peat is cheap, readily available and of consistent quality, and any alternative has to compete with these factors. The taskforce will produce a comprehensive and detailed roadmap to address barriers in relation to both the supply and demand of peat alternatives, with the aim of reforming once and for all a supply chain focussed around peat. SOIL FERTILISERS see also How to use FertilisersAs we're on the subject of sowing, growing and success in doing so (from a peat based compost point of view!) I think it would be a good idea to tie the previous article in to the use of fertilisers. Ideally, in the early part of the year, we should all take a sample of each of our growing beds (or rotation areas)and analyse it. Based on the results of this analysis you can then decide which fertilisers or alkaline/ acid balancing compound to apply before planting. The idea is - to begin with - to ensure that each crop has an adequate, but not excessive supply of the three major plant foods . Also each plant should be growing in a soil that is pH friendly for it. If you have a proper crop rotation plan, then the nutrient levels should more or less balance out over a full crop rotation period (minimum - three years).
Nitrogen is rarely in excess because it
is easily leached out of the soil by
winter rain. To replenish it then
pelleted chicken manure is the answer -
in fact nothing misses a little treat of
chicken poo - but a word of warning - it
is potent. So it should never
come into direct physical contact with
plants (it can easily scorch them -
especially when wet). Rake it into the
soil or just sprinkle it a little way
from the plants (suffice to say I don't
mean half a mile away). Now with the
depletion of Nitrogen either of the other two
)potash/ phosphate) could build up. If potash is in excess,
the answer is probably fish meal.
If phosphate is in excess, however, the solution is usually a combination of two straight fertilisers, like sulphate of ammonia and sulphate of potash. I should add that I am not totally organic, but always prefer organic fertilisers if there is a choice. The only other time I use synthetic fertiliser is for my flowers and hanging baskets. I don't eat flowers and the soil they get grown in for temporary short term use. Fertilisers for particular crops should be applied once the crop is growing, usually in liquid form, or easily soluble crystals. Onions and leeks are given high nitrogen fertiliser during the growing stage, que Chicken Poo!, In the case of onions, one with a higher potash content later on to ripen the bulbs - liquid comfrey leaf fertiliser is perfect for them.
Leafy crops such as cabbages need high
nitrogen feeds all along their
I said earlier that root crops require phosphate. I have never found, however, that they need extra doses while growing. There is enough in the ground to begin with, I do not feed these crops much, but if I do, a general organic fertiliser is adequate. I hope you understand the use of fertilisers a bit more after reading this article. By the way, do not be worried if you have not got facilities for soil testing, there's usually someone close by who can help out. If you are keen, you can send it away for analysis to one of the firms you see advertised on-line or in gardening magazines. If you don't want to go to this trouble and expense, you can't go far wrong with a base dressing of fish, blood and bone (or Growmore or if you are not fussy about using synthetic fertilisers) and then follow the other steps which I have described. Did You Know?
1.
In 2012 - unlike in the forties - I would hope that we gardeners are a bit more enlightened about the disadvantages of using inorganic fertilisers over a long term, as the soil eventually becomes impoverished, and there are serious health issues raised from our intake of chemicals through the food we eat. Synthetic, inorganic fertilisers are basically a quick fix - something that was obviously needed during the Dig for Victory campaign. Long term they have a negative impact. 2. Wilted comfrey leaves are an excellent source of organic potash. Use them around soft fruit or when planting potatoes. Or add them to the compost heap at any time. Cultivated strains are available but don't despise the wild plant which grows beside ditches on many allotment sites. Some questions you may be asking:
Here is a basic outline that should answer the above questions for you. ORGANIC FERTILISERS Basically, inorganic FERTILISERS are made from synthetic, manufactured chemicals, and organic FERTILISERS are made from naturally occurring organic material. However, this is a bit of an over-simplification, and sometimes the line between organic and inorganic FERTILISER can get a bit blurry. For example, naturally occurring minerals such as limestone, saltpetre, and mine rock phosphate, although technically inorganic (they come from rocks, after all), have been used as FERTILISERS for centuries and are just as safe as organic FERTILISERS. Organic FERTILISERS are generally created as other organic material that rots and decays. As plant and animal matter rots, the organic material breaks down into its component water and minerals. The resulting biomass is very high in nutrient quality. The very simple example of organic composition is compost. Compost is from organic wastes of natural living things such as animal manure, plants, leaves and fruit and vegetable waste. Many gardeners and and allotmenteers prefer to use animal manure, aside from different plants and leaves, as FERTILISERS for longer period of time because of its proven nutrient contents. INORGANIC CHEMICAL FERTILISERS Many inorganic FERTILISERS contain synthesized chemicals that do not occur naturally in nature, and thus can become harmful. The introduction of such chemicals, if used extensively over time, can throw off the local environment and ecosystem. Chemicals used as FERTILISERS will extensively affect everything and everyone. This happens because when it rains and the chemicals are washing into the soil. As the rainwater flows through the varied bodies of water, more and more living things in and out of the water are affected. The chemicals will also reach the groundwater, which is where drinking water comes from. The worst thing about the synthetic FERTILISERS is the extent of chemicals on the crops and produces. When produce is grown with synthetic FERTILISERS, the produce will contain the chemicals in its flesh and once it is consumed by people, the chemicals can then enter and harm their bodies. Eating synthetically grown produces over a period of time can cause major health issues. WHAT MAKES ORGANIC FERTILISER BETTER? When organic FERTILISERS are introduced and used by growers into the local environment the materials are naturally occurring plant and animal matter and they do not have the negative affect on the environment found with inorganic FERTILISERS. When it comes to crop growth, organic FERTILISERS are good in encouraging growth. It take more organic FERTILISER to do the job of a lesser amount of inorganic, however with organic FERTILISER the soil absorbs the nutrients and essential substances more slowly thereby turning out rich crops that are far better than the crops from gardens that use synthetic FERTILISERS. As the soil continuously becomes enriched from the use of organic FERTILISERS, the growth cycle of crops yielded increases every harvest season. According to a 32- year study performed in Sweden, the best thing about organic FERTILISER is that it increased the yield rate of crops by 15%. The inorganic FERTILISER only produced a 50% yield rate compared to the organic producing a phenomenal 65% yield rate. It is hoped that the above has answered some of your questions about organic FERTILISERS, and it’s uses in organic gardening. Below explains how the soil pH and the use of lime are also intricate parts of the successful "growing" picture SOIL pH EXPLAINEDThe pH (not PH) scale is used to measure the acidity or alkalinity of an aqueous solution and is determined by the hydrogen ion content (H+). This scale was invented by a Danish scientist called Sorenson in 1909. The letters pH stand for “Power of Hydrogen” and is a measure of the molar concentration of hydrogen ions in the solution and as such is a measure of acidity (that's just for the chemistry anoraks!) For us non-chemists and gardeners the scale generally runs from 4.00, which is highly acid in soil terms, through 7.00 which is neutral to 8.00 which is alkaline. To put this in perspective. The pH scale ranges from 0, which is strongly acid, to 14 which is strongly alkaline, the scale point 7 being neutral. Examples of solutions with differing pH values include car battery acid (pH 1), lemon juice (pH 2), beer (pH 4), natural rain (pH 5-6), milk (pH 6), washing-up liquid (pH 7), seawater (pH 8), milk of magnesia (pH 10) and ammonia (pH 12). The pH scale is logarithmic rather than linear, and so there is a ten fold increase in acidity with each pH unit, so, e.g. rainfall with pH 5 is ten times more acidic than pH 6, rainfall with pH 4 is 100 times more acidic than pH 6 and rainfall with pH 3 is 1000 times more acidic than pH 6.
To LOWER soil acidity we need to RAISE the pH value and vice versa Keeping it simple, if your soil is too acid then nutrients will not be available to the plants even if they are present. To LOWER soil acidity we need to RAISE the pH value and vice versa.
Different plants require different levels of acidity – hence we have ericaceous composts for acid loving plants. Most vegetables thrive when the soil is slightly acid i.e. a pH level between 6.5 and 7, Potatoes tend to prefer a lower pH, more acid soil (they are classified as "lime haters"), and Brassicas prefer a slightly alkaline soil, pH of 7.0 or even slightly higher. That's why it is suggested to lime in the autumn after potatoes and to follow with Brassicas who like the high ph. Legumes (peas beans etc.) should be grown in between in a good crop rotation schedule. Measuring Soil Acidity (pH level)You can buy various types of soil pH test kits. Often you mix a soil sample with water then compare a colour change to a chart (see our video tutorial on soil testing), however this is rather tedious as you need to take more than a couple of samples. Cheap electronic testers are now available (often for as little as £5.00), which is much easier. You simply switch the pH meter on and insert two prongs into the earth you're testing and then wait approximately 1 minute for the reading to settle, which you then read on a scale of 4 - 8 on the meter's face (depending on your instrument). Whichever kit you use, it will come with instructions and will give you a reading. Never make a judgement on the basis of just one test. You may have hit a spot particularly high or low pH. Take samples or test from a number of spots and work out an average reading (add up the results and divide by the number of tests done) this will give you a much better general view of your soil’s acidity level. The acidity of the soil has a huge effect on fertility because the acidity of soil controls how available nutrients are to your crops. Clay soils are also harder to work the more acid they are for some complicated chemical reason. Different soil types will behave differently so one vital tool for the serious gardener is a tester for acidity levels. You can also judge the acidity of the soil by the types of weeds that grow and their behaviour. Sorrel, creeping buttercup, nettle, dock and mare’s tail are all signs your soil is becoming or is too acid. Reducing soil acidity will help deter some weeds – they were designed for acid soils unlike our edible garden crops that prefer something a little more alkaline. Changing the acidity level of the soilTo raise the pH and lower acidity or "sweeten" the soil, we add lime. To lower pH and increase acidity you can add sulphate of ammonia or urea which are high nitrogen FERTILISERS. From this you can see that adding manure will also lower pH and make the soil more acidic. It’s counter to what you expect, but adding loads of manure year after year will actually reduce soil fertility by making it too acidic so the plants cannot access the nutrients. They become locked up. So we need to balance that with the use of lime Do you need to lime and how much to lime?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PLEASE ACCEPT MY APOLOGIES IF YOU RECEIVE TWO COPIES OF
OUR NEWS-LETTER - that'll be because your e-mail address is
probably registered with both
our Aeron.jpg)
Vale Allotment
Society &
Gardeners Chat-Shed web-sites.
Consequently it will have been
automatically added to both
data-bases. No harm done - just delete
the second one to arrive! 
A
Welsh assembly member has called for a
vacant plot of land next to the Senedd
to be turned into an allotment site for
members and staff.
The
Barcode Wales project, led by the
National Botanic Garden’s Head of
Conservation and Research Dr Natasha de
Vere, has created a reference database
of DNA barcodes based on the 1143 native
flowering plants and conifers of Wales,
assembling over 5700 DNA barcodes.
PhD
student Jenny Hawkins is working on a
joint project between the Welsh National
Botanic Garden and the School of
Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at
Cardiff University to DNA barcode honey.
LEVINGTON
ALERT!
In nearly all cases, I personally use a balanced
organic fertiliser such as fish,
blood and bone. The exception would be
if any bed already has a very high level
of one of the plant foods, in which case
I might choose fertilisers which do not
contain this food because an excess of a
particular element, does more harm than
good. 
growth
cycle. yes that's right - chicken
poo!
Growmore, probably the most popular
synthetic compound fertiliser, was first
formulated as part of the "Dig For
Victory" campaign in the Second World
War - hence its full name "National
Growmore". 
If the soil is not of a
chalky nature it will tend to become acidic as the Calcium is
leached out. When it becomes acidic (sour) with too low a pH level
it will require lime to increase the pH level to make it more
alkaline (sweet).|
pH of soil |
Sandy Soil Grams/sq Metre |
Loamy Soil Grams/sq Metre |
Clay Soil Grams/sq Metre |
|
4.5 |
190 |
285 |
400 |
|
5.0 |
155 |
235 |
330 |
|
5.5 |
130 |
190 |
260 |
|
6.0 |
118 |
155 |
215 |
DID YOU KNOW?
Lots of plants are used as dyes. You can colour cloth with stewed onion skin, tea bags or walnut juice – try it! One of the oldest blue dyes comes from a plant called Woad that has been used since Neolithic times – that's over 6000 years ago - even before my Ol' Man was born!
"Not a lot of people know that!"
That's Un-BEE-lievable!
Like
me, you've probably wondered at some
time how bees and other insects hold on to
flowers on a windy day? Scientists
believe they have found the answer.
Researchers have known for some time that bees prefer petals with conical cells, which are found in the majority of flowers from roses to petunias. However, the reason for the preference has remained largely a mystery, until now.
The team from Cambridge and Bristol Universities recreated a 'shaking platform' to mimic the way flowers move in the wind, using both conical-celled flowers and strains with flat cells. They found that the more they shook the platform, the more bees opted for the conical-celled petals.
It's thought the bees use the gaps between the cells as footholds in blustery conditions, locking their claws into them in a similar way to Velcro fabric fasteners, and helping them hold on to the flowers.
'Nobody knew what these cells were for, and now we have a good answer that works for pretty much all flowers,' said report author Dr Beverley Glover. 'It's too easy to look at flowers from a human perspective, but when you put yourself into the bee's shoes you find hidden features of flowers can be crucial to foraging success.'
That's it for another issue. If you would like to write something for our news-letter then all contributions are gratefully accepted.
If you have any friends or gardening acquaintances who you think would like our news-letter and would benefit from it then by all means point them towards our news-letter archive on the web-site where they can also subscribe on-line to receive the publication by e-mail.
Until the next time - keep busy, keep hoeing those weeds, but have fun & ENJOY on your plot or in your garden!
Best Wishes,
G
|
||||||||
