Thinning oak stand

[devon TWiG]

It is an inevitable certainty that Squirrels will ruin them all before long though !!

[Big J]

9 minutes ago, devon TWiG said:

It is an inevitable certainty that Squirrels will ruin them all before long though !!

 

Yep. Just can't see the point of planting oak myself. 

[devon TWiG]

1 hour ago, Big J said:

 

Yep. Just can't see the point of planting oak myself. 

or almost any hardwood for that matter !!  , maybe for bio diversity etc, but timber production is very unlikely ...

[Big J]

32 minutes ago, devon TWiG said:

or almost any hardwood for that matter !!  , maybe for bio diversity etc, but timber production is very unlikely ...

 

Yeah, fair point.

I've seen so many young oak stands over the years and I honestly can't remember a single one that wasn't destroyed by grey squirrels. It's all fine and well being for biodiversity, but most people that plant oak don't seem to realise that what they plant will never make the beautiful oak woodlands they're expecting. Or at least not without 30 odd years of consistent squirrel murdering.

[Spruce Pirate]

3 hours ago, Big J said:

 

It's not 3ft. 2.5m x 2.5m is normal. Or 2.0m x 2.5m. Sometimes it's 3x3m but it tends not to produce very good quality trees.

 

Going to have to disagree there.  Those spacings are what the grant schemes dictate, not what is good for growing timber.  Most of the old literature, I'm lead to believe, favours tight spacings.  Anecdotally, I've seen this in practice and it works, but my experience is not wide enough to be considered scientifically robust.

 

 

 

Locally, we have some hardwoods destroyed by squirrels, however, there has been a purge on greys to favour the reds which are moving back in.  The result is that it is now years since I've seen a grey squirrel, which is a good thing, and timber damage has gone down too.  The reds have, as yet not really moved back in to fill the vacuum, if and when they do it will be at least interesting to see if the damage to trees increases again.

[AHPP]

5 minutes ago, Spruce Pirate said:

 

Going to have to disagree there.  Those spacings are what the grant schemes dictate, not what is good for growing timber.  Most of the old literature, I'm lead to believe, favours tight spacings.  Anecdotally, I've seen this in practice and it works, but my experience is not wide enough to be considered scientifically robust.

 

 

 

Locally, we have some hardwoods destroyed by squirrels, however, there has been a purge on greys to favour the reds which are moving back in.  The result is that it is now years since I've seen a grey squirrel, which is a good thing, and timber damage has gone down too.  The reds have, as yet not really moved back in to fill the vacuum, if and when they do it will be at least interesting to see if the damage to trees increases again.

I always find it funny when shooters etc are giving it the big one about being custodians of the countryside, killing greys to protect trees and let the reds back in. I bet the reds are just as bad for trees. 

[Spruce Pirate]

22 minutes ago, AHPP said:

I always find it funny when shooters etc are giving it the big one about being custodians of the countryside, killing greys to protect trees and let the reds back in. I bet the reds are just as bad for trees. 

 

I don't know if there's much evidence or study on reds and damage to trees.  But my money is with yours, I reckon almost as bad as greys if not as bad.

[Big J]

7 hours ago, Spruce Pirate said:

 

Going to have to disagree there.  Those spacings are what the grant schemes dictate, not what is good for growing timber.  Most of the old literature, I'm lead to believe, favours tight spacings.  Anecdotally, I've seen this in practice and it works, but my experience is not wide enough to be considered scientifically robust.

 

 

 

Locally, we have some hardwoods destroyed by squirrels, however, there has been a purge on greys to favour the reds which are moving back in.  The result is that it is now years since I've seen a grey squirrel, which is a good thing, and timber damage has gone down too.  The reds have, as yet not really moved back in to fill the vacuum, if and when they do it will be at least interesting to see if the damage to trees increases again.

 

That as the case may be, such tight planting was also done when labour and materials were cheap. At £3.50 a tree, supplied, planted and tubed, tight spacing is economically unviable. 

 

It's good news that the greys are being managed with you. I still wouldn't risk planting oak! It only takes one game keeper to retire and you're back to square one! 

[Will C]

8 hours ago, AHPP said:

I always find it funny when shooters etc are giving it the big one about being custodians of the countryside, killing greys to protect trees and let the reds back in. I bet the reds are just as bad for trees. 

 

 

7 hours ago, Spruce Pirate said:

 

I don't know if there's much evidence or study on reds and damage to trees.  But my money is with yours, I reckon almost as bad as greys if not as bad.

We only have reds over here. There is virtually no tree damage from them. It happens very occasionally if there desperate for moisture in a drought but I’ve seen 2 or 3 cases in the last 10 years, even then it’s a small inch or 2 square patch not branches striped to the point of wrecking the tree. 

[Stubby]

8 hours ago, AHPP said:

 I bet the reds are just as bad for trees. 

Apparently not . I don't know why but they cause very little damage .