Look at this.

[Harrison2604]

It doesn't matter Rupe is right!

Edited April 14, 2011 by Harrison2604

[Rupe]

We don't do critisising other people work on here, you don't know all the facts so no point in speculating the why and wherefors.

[Harrison2604]

We don't do critisising other people work on here, you don't know all the facts so no point in speculating the why and wherefors.

 

I have removed it, you're right! I don't want to step on peoples toes.

 

I just don't understand why they decided to do it like that?

[GreenGui]

Thats what the French do to their boundary oaks in Brittany. The big limbs are removed for firewood with one or two of the smaller branches left on - they look funny for a while but grow very quickly, like they have been put on steroids. The other way is the full pollard we are familiar with in the UK

[Rupe]

I dont understand it either but its not my job to understand. You could go mad gettign too upset by what others decide is a good thing. Chances are the client asked for that, weather they are happy with the result is another thing, they might be now considering other options, but in general its pointless worrying about it, and whilst its not up to me to point out forum guidlines I just thought I would mention it.

[MasterBlaster]

Dagnabbit! I missed it!

[Harrison2604]

Oh well!

 

No harm in putting 1 picture up.

[skyhuck]

Looks great!!!!!!!!

 

And my customer was delighted!!!!!!!!!!!

[David Humphries]

They may have been left as sap risers (sometimes known as a giraffe pollard)

 

This helps to maintain the newly developing canopy.

Then will be reduced/removed when the canopy is dynamic again.

 

Pollards store starch reserves in the pollard heads, if the pollard is a long time lappsed, (50 + years) the starch reserves are gone & can't be used to help with the developement of new shoots/branches.

 

 

 

.

[Andy Collins]

See, a reason for everything