





The dominant species in bog ecosystems is Sphagnum moss, which is the major component of peat moss. Peatlands are important in the filtering of water, serving as collection basins for precipitation, in the accumulation and storage of carbon and in providing habitat for wildlife (Rubec 1996).
In Canada the primary threat to peatlands is from the extraction of peat for horticulture use. Peatlands may be harvested for a period of 15 to 50 years, depending on the depth of the peat deposit...
...After the surface peat supply has been exhausted, the field is abandoned to revegetate naturally. This process may take as little as 3 to 7 years on minerotrophic (nutrient rich) peatlands. On ombrotrophic (nutrient poor) peatlands in which vacuum harvesting has been used, this process may take 25 to 30 years...
The harvested site is typically barren and devoid of vegetation with exception of a few vascular plant species that can tolerant dry and acidic soil conditions (Bugon et al. 1997). On post-harvested peatlands there is very little natural recolonization by Sphagnum moss. In Quebec only 10% of the abandoned bogs have some Sphagnum regeneration.
I can add a little more to that. I think I also have a thread on this subject somewhere, where back in October, Congress has made it possible for there not to be any strict governing rules to organic dairy farming. To the smaller farms, organic milk comes from cows that have ALWAYS been in green pasture, and never fed anything synthetic. A cow on a larger farm, however, may have been weaned on cow's blood (seriously) and be kept on a pen, and still be considered "organic."webmaster wrote:I was reading an [url=https://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2006/05/03/FDGA0IHL761.DTL]article about organic milk[/url] the other day, and they mentioned giant confinement dairies where cheap organic milk is produced. Which contrasted with the smaller dairies producing organic milk that had more humane methods of caring for their cows.
You ddn't offend me at all and I hope I didn't come off that way either. Sorry if I did. You are right, in order for there to be a bigger impact on our environment these big corporations and bigger name brands really need to step up to the plate. But they won't until they see that the consumers want environmentally friendly options that don't rape the natural environment in the process.peachguy wrote:I Know the little things count and I didn't mean to offend you in anyways I even try to reduce lots of things, all I ment is that it is going to take the people in high postions to get the average person who doesn't think about the affect to just go with the better way. Like a lot of organic things cost a lot of money and people who have low income are going to go with the non-organic .
This is exactly what I was thinking. Refusing to buy from the biggest offenders even their so-called organic products will have an impact, and in fact HAS had an impact, on our options as consumers and, in turn, the effects on this earth. I'm not exactly a tree-hugger or anything; we own and drive two cars like most families, my kids wouldn't eat all organic if I paid them (I myself am a picky eater), but we try where we can, and I know it makes a difference.Grey wrote:Consumers have enormous power. If a good number of people stop using RoundUp, that manufacturer will have to look at some kind of organic thing to offer. And if those consumers are already happy with vinegar, I don't know that Roundup will create something better that is still ORGANIC and cheap!
I think things will change for the better, I am glad there are so many environmentally-conscious people out there. And while I am not perfect either, I figure a little goes a long way. I try to use vinegar and baking soda to clean my house with as much as I can, rather than Mr Clean and bleach. Just me not buying a bottle of that stuff once a month and putting that down my drains to go heaven-knows where has to help a little.