Thin or Reduce

[RobArb]

Just to throw a spanner in the works, have you considered RVT - Reduction Via Thinning.

 

Yes Mesterh brought it up in his post, I try to prune to a natural shape, what ever that is, thinning is normally done as part of the reduction, not that I intentional thin while reducing it's just a natural process of the reduction, crossing limbs or future crossing limbs I remove unless the branches are supporting each other and are rather large like say, on a Beech tree, removing crossing branches on a Ceder of Lebonon, for example, is asking for trouble, re-reducing trees, which I seem to do rather a lot of, I despise and consider it work for works sake.

 

What was the question? Thinning gets my vote over reduction.

 

To thin or reduce urban trees, that is the question haha!

 

i ask because its good to get other peoples opinions as the LA i work for like to thin a lot...

[High Scale]

I reduce a lot for my LA.

[Rupe]

Just to throw a spanner in the works, have you considered RVT - Reduction Via Thinning.

 

Put simply you take out the longest bits right to the base, leaving shorter bits to form the new crown.

 

 

 

I do a lot of that. Its not the easiest thing to sell but I usually get there. "lets take as much long stuff out as we can without stressing the tree, and see what shape we are left with and adjust it from there if really necessary"

 

Also, the "good tree work should be invisible" line is working well.

[bumble B]

Well I got a caning at the Tech Cert refresher course for even thinking about reducing a heavy limb, to reduce leverage and end weight, that was growing across a drive way. Why do tree officers agree to reductions then?

Thin, fell, or leave. Sometimes a jolly good crown clean will do.

[Albedo]

I do a lot of that. Its not the easiest thing to sell but I usually get there. "lets take as much long stuff out as we can without stressing the tree, and see what shape we are left with and adjust it from there if really necessary"

 

Also, the "good tree work should be invisible" line is working well.

 

I did some apples and a prunus yesterday and one offered nothing except 15 foot vertical regrowth with nothing but twigs on it and did what you just said and was amazed how well it turned out, much better than I thought, and had left it till last so the client wouldn't ban me from touching her other trees which offered a lot more to work with.

 

 

I nearly took before and afters but didn't think it would be interesting, and now I wish I had, although posting reduction pics on arbtalk is suicide:001_smile:

 

 

Edit: Better add that on the apples I wasn't pruning for fruit as the client doesn't want apples for some reason, so just for tree form and that had to be natural not lollypop

Edited February 10, 2011 by Albedo

[RobArb]

although posting reduction pics on arbtalk is suicide:001_smile:

 

you think?

 

surely if a good job has been done it's good to post!

[Albedo]

you think?

 

surely if a good job has been done it's good to post!

 

 

That was a bit of a throw away remark Rob, but I reckon that people have different views of what is good. Usually its split about 50/50 so I am prepared to respect other peoples views.

 

One thing I do find a bit odd is pics that are posted of what may or may not be 'Haircut Pruning', whereby an even shape is achieved by cutting on the dotted line so to speak. These pics, although often aplauded as good reductions (because they are a nice even shape) are difficult to judge as they are taken from a distance and you can't see the cuts.

 

I think it would be quite an effort to photograph a tree to see what your'e given to work with and what you end up with.

 

I thought my comment about not being bothered about even shapes would attract more debate, than the posting pics one as quite a few people have expressed the same reluctance in the past.

 

So here's hopeing I'm not at the centre of a big argument:001_smile:

[RobArb]

to be honest, i prefer trees of an uneven shape as it looks more natural, BUT, they also then don't look like they've had anything done to them... yes this is a good thing but tell the general public that...

 

IME and its only an observation, some TO's seem to like the tree a nice even shape and as i'm only a worker and not in a position of authority (this i'm working on) to decide whats what, then i go with the flow and do as i'm told

Edited February 10, 2011 by RobArb

[Danavan]

I take each tree & branch + union on it's own merit. I tend to reduce trees by removing the longer branches from the extremity's of a limb & work my way inwards by removal of branch work as I would a crown clean. I reduce load on branches that may need it due to a potentially weak union by significant weight reduction to what I would see as a conventional reduction point.

Generally a symbiosis of thinning & weight reduction work on individual limbs to appease possible structural defects with no real viable reduction of the size & shape of the tree along with a balanced reactive growth response in the future is my aim.

In short, a bit of both on most trees dose the job. Their will be times a tree needs a reduction to reduce risk of failure & to keep it in our urban environment.

as long as we keep in mind management plans ect on the things we cut, no prob's eh:lol:

[TimberCutterDartmoor]

Typical sub 20% reduction on a tpo'd Syc hammered by the TO today - effectively screwed up the application and threw it in my face! The tree is completely knackered and so was I when I did the form so I don't deserve forgiveness but I'm left wishing I hadn't processed it for the customer. I'm finding more and more that customers want to apply to the LA themselves and seem to do remarkably better at getting what they want which is far more barbaric than what we recommend and put forward.