Opinions please on large Beech

[RobArb]

i was trying to find the smily man that did a bow and put him in here

 

 

sadly i could not find that man?

[Frank]

This has been a thoroughly interesting thread from a bystanders point of view. Some really thought provoking content.

 

 

in the photograph below I will ask the question ; did this Beech deserve to die??

Before reading this thread, my answer would have been quite simply yes, it was dangerous to the point of lifting enough in the wind for me to put my finger underneath before it sat back again. It wouldnt have lasted much longer and was alongside a busy road into a business park, a serious hazard and potential disaster. However, after reading this thread, my answer is different.

 

The question was did this beech deserve to die? My answer is another question, Did this Beech deserve to have a tarmac road placed on top of its roots a mere 12 inches away from its trunk??

[Stephen Blair]

off my thread Franky boy!!!!!! lol.

heres some more pics, i spent nearly an hour(which cost me time and fuel:sneaky2:) taking a slice off for you guys to see the damage from the olg limb removal wound, this is where there was a bracket. This limb was removed about 10 years ago by the homeowners brother, it must of been a good size branch

[MattyF]

no, it is the way it is, and I have a long and arduous task in front of me, as do a few others out there who are all trying to show the light.

 

Decay CAN be managed, is a natural process in the ancient tree and WE cannot just keep wiping out every psuedodefective tree:thumbdown:

 

Can it??? have reduced huge beech trees 35% and they have still failed so we have gone back cleaned them up reduced another 35% and a year later the trees failed again,have also tried and still trying to manage merrip infected beech some have failed I could think of a lot of trees actually that have failed that I've tried to save so I disagree totally with that statement, yes some trees are needlessly felled...there is probably a 97 % chance stevies tree won't fail but that's still leaving a chance and at the end of the day trees near property pose a risk and it's up to the people who own amd live with them to make up there mind what they want...

[mrtree]

On what basis do you believe that there is a 3% chance the tree will fail? Where will it fail?

 

I can tell you without a hurricane force wind there is no way that the trunk is going to break. Each of the photos in post 43 show literally feet of solid wood and even by Matthecks t/r formula we are safely within accepatable limits.

 

As for you reducing trees by 35% and they still fail (twice within a year after a 35% reduction) all I can imagine is that you did not accurately assess the tree and manage it correctly. You mention that you have had lots of trees fail that you have tried to manage. What does this say?

 

The point of this and other threads is that trees can be maintained and managed if knowledge and expertise is used. Pointing to failures does not mean that others are not capable or that other trees are not managable. Your argument is nothing but fear mongering.

[mrtree]

Steven your photos show a different story than we have been presented with earlier. I still believe the tree could have been saved if the owner wanted.

 

If you read Mattheck's VTA and talk of t/r I am sure you can examine these photos as a learning ecperience. Brian Kane believes that Mattheck's 30% limit for t/r is far too conservative. t/r could be as little as 1% in certain cases.

[mrtree]

Frank's example of a decayed beech (stump) is a no brainer from his limited description and photos. The tree show extensive decay without a complete nondecayed shell. t/r is between 0 and 20%. We do not know the architecture of the tree so that is no help.

 

If you can put your finger underneath it while the wind blows you have a major problem. Either you mean it is about to topple in the soil or there is a major crack in the stem. Either one likely points to removal.

 

What is the deciding factor for this tree in my opinion is the location. Next to a busy road changes really means the tree will never be vigourous again and will never lay down enough new wood to compensate for the loss of strength. We know that the future is not good for the tree due to decay and stress and as such I would consider removing the tree and using it as an opportunity to plant new trees.

[josharb87]

The last pic is a cracker stevie!

 

I find it odd how something with as many variables as nature, people use such specific percentages, formulas. . .

 

Sweden has opened my eyes to what trees can withstand, blows alot of written 'rules of thumb' and formulas out the window

[MattyF]

I agree with you it won't fail, the 3 % is storms! My big beech reduction failures .... Mattheck does not take in to account that no strain of fungus or tree is the same in some cases lignin can be broken down far quicker than others,why is that scare mongering I can't monitor a tree monthly neither can you prevent storms and for the record I have sucsesfully braced and reduced many trees and I believe prevented from failure but people getting sentimental about a tree that should be felled is great.... Even though some should of never been given a chance

[mrtree]

3% is storms? Well what storms? What wind speeds? You clearly know what storm will destroy the tree is you know 3%. Lets hear your specific answer rather than just saying that there will always be a storm that can destroy the tree.

 

The fact is that the storm that will break the stem of this tree, in its current condition will destroy the home next to it. So yes you are fear mongering with the normal tree cutter's histronics of THE STORMS THE STORMS.