So much to disagree with in this post, but I'll resist because of its age.

Al

I'm listening....

The idea that agricultural use of peat contributes to an unsustainable harvest rate is far from the truth. I would concede the point if everyone in Canada and the northern tier of states was burning it as fuel, but consider: In Canada alone, there are more than 270 million acres of harvestable peat bogs - that's harvestable. Not taken into account are the millions of additional acres of bog that are not deemed harvestable because of their size or location. If we make the conservative guess that the harvestable portions of these bogs are 10 feet deep, that means there are probably more than 900 billion cu. ft. available for harvest, just in Canada! That doesn't even take into consideration what's available in Europe, Asia, or places like New Zealand where they also mine peat. Canada currently has mining/harvesting operations underway on approximately 40 thousand acres or about .014% (that reads 14 one thousandths of 1 percent) of their harvestable peat.

You'll find the math accurate and conservative. It's more likely that the next Laurentide Ice Sheet will be upon us and glaciers will have covered what's available before we even use a notable fraction of one percent.

As peat bogs grow, their depth is increased by a paltry 1mm per year, approximately. Based on current harvest rates in North America, peat is accumulating at a rate approximately 70x greater than what is being lost to harvest. You can probably tell I don't feel guilty about using peat.

I agree that both peat and coir can be left out of the lawn/garden equation altogether, and compost would also be my first choice as a top dressing or soil amendment, but we part ways again when we turn to use of peat vs coir or compost in container media. Peat and coir have moisture retention curves that are close enough you would be hard pressed to say one has much advantage over the other. Coir does have less loft (so less aeration) and tends to compact severely if watered from the top or used as a large fraction of a medium - more than 25%. For this reason, most greenhouse ops that use significant amounts of coir in their media sub-irrigate.

Too, one should not think all that needs to be done is substitute coir for peat in container media and all will be well. Coir is chemically different than peat and requires work-arounds if we are to avoid unnecessary limitations of plant potential. For example, coir is often high in salinity and can contain toxic levels of Na. It has an extremely high K content, and it's notably higher pH (than peat) means dolomite is not suitable as a liming agent/source of Ca/Mg. Gypsum should be used as a Ca source, which acts remedially to fix coir's low S content as well.

My go to medium for garden display containers/veggies is (by volume):

5 parts pine bark (dust to 3/8)

1 part perlite (medium - soil mix grade)

1 part peat (more or less - depending on the particle distribution of the bark)

Dolomite

Micromax

I've done a number of comparisons between plants grown in the medium above, contrasted with media in which I substituted coir for peat or CHCs for the pine bark, and the results were extremely telling ..... which is what started my investigation into coir and why it might be performing so poorly.

What I use for short term container plantings - no more than 2 years:

What I use for long term plantings - woody material growing on as potential bonsai, and refined bonsai; succulents; cacti; anything that might be in the same medium for more than 2 years:

Some mixed plantings:

Al

Thank you for listening. Nothing at all against you personally, but I think that whole 'carbon sink' thing is part of a belief system based on a political consensus. The idea that consensus with such huge political influences attached can somehow settle climate science seems absurd, one that is foreign to all real scientists if only because consensus has absolutely nothing to do with science. Consensus and conspiracy are the stock and trade of politicians, and in science - irrelevant. Historically, the lion's share of notable scientists are famous for the simple fact they broke with consensus, leaving it behind as refuge for the swindlers and mischief makers. Neither is science a belief system; what it is, is truth, and its findings aren't and never will be contingent on consensus. How can truth be had when politics are invested not only in the process, but in the outcome as well? Garbage in - garbage out. At one time, the unanimous consensus was that the world was flat - and the relationship of that consensus to truth is _____?

And just for fun - the review process as it relates to global warming or climate change is laughable. The influence of personal and political agendas (including the incessant claims of consensus) have done far more to shape the pseudo science of global warming than science itself. "If it sounds good or advances our agenda, use it - we'll make transmogrifications on the fly as we find necessary".

Just the view from here. I've learned to expect the mileage of others might vary.

Al

thanks for the math on peat bogs. Do you have a post on water retention curves somewhere?

Al

Hey Mark, it sounds like you are doing all the right things. Leaf mold is an excellent mulch, manure and green yard waste help balance the pile. My two pieces of advice would be to test the finished product so you know the pH, and if you apply it to garden beds in the winter, gently loosen the leaf litter in spring to let the plants poke through and warm up.

Finished compost should be close to neutral pH (slightly acidic) low in nutrients, and should not significantly affect mineral soil pH because of its low bulk density and mineral soils high buffering capacity (by comparison).