pruning and cabling a mature maple

[dadio]

you need to balance out the need to reduce, weight to keep a tree from falling apart, with the harm that pruning does to a tree in decline. If there was no structure or other valuable below, I might have recommended against pruning. That is why I left the one side of the tree alone, just removed deadwood from the other, and only pruned back live branches over the roof..

[Old Mill Tree Care]

Shoot me down in a ball of flames if I'm off track but the damage from sun scorch looked old and the the decay cavities would be extensive.

If the tree was in it's declining phase but responds well to the pruning then it will become heavier with regrowth and will suffer increased wind pressure.

Why on earth would you use 'through bolts' on thin snappy declining Maple stems when Cobra is available, not harmful to the tree and is much easier to use.

And finally - stubbs!!!! Between 4 & 5 minutes on the video there are loads of them. Most maples will sprout very well from stubs like that. 3-6 rapid growing vertical shoots.

[RobArb]

don't bother, your opinions don't get looked over

 

Daniel, i commend you for taking the time out to make and post videos:thumbup:

 

Seeing how other people work and do things is sometimes a good things as you pick up litttle bits of info and hints and tips that do "sometimes" work

 

But on the other hand, you seem to have some sort of God complex, shooting down anyone else's valid opinions on your techniques, refusing or plain right ignoring valid questions that have been put forward, and calling yourself a radical free-thinker who does things "beyond the norm/book" to push the industry forward....

 

Its THIS attitude that comes across that then gets peoples backs up and you end up struggling to get people to listen

 

Calm the arrogance down, make more videos and express an opinion on why you do things without sounding condiscending, and maybe more people will listen..

[dadio]

OK, BUT I gotta call it like I see it.. Shigo had it wrong, when he called for perfect target cuts everytime.. In the real world there are plenty of ambiguous targets that even the best trained and most careful arborists are going to get wrong from time to time.. And then there is the human factor.. People are going to do what they do, which is tending to take the easiest path of least resistance. That ends up with reaching, over extending, using a pole pruner from meters away, and making partially blind cuts, etc., when pruning..

In that respect, asking arbs to make perfect target cuts everytime, is just not realistic. And because violating the living tissue of the remaining stem is far worse than leaving a stub to decay (which trees have been dealing with ever since there was a tree), it is better to leave a stub, than risk violating the parent stem's living tissue.

 

That said... All stubs are not created equal... leaving a short stub, on a branch tip, under 1" in diameter, is pretty much irrelevant. The tree will not be better off with a "proper" cut, made in that situation. On more significant cuts made on the main stem, it is well worth the time to make a careful target cut, when there is a clear target. When there is not a clear target, as is often the case, it is better to err on the side of leaving a small stub.

 

Shigo's background was from forrestry and many of his early papers had to do with wood discoloration and decay resulting from pruning/wounding.. This focus on wood value, is much different than the arborist's focus on structural safety.. Trees in general can deal with a good bit of decay, and survive well.. The type of decay that results from leaving a small stub, in general is not the type of decay that causes trees to fail, where as the type of decay that results from violating the tissue of the parent stem can be catastrophic..

 

Since pruning standards do not account for the size and placement of stubs, and the species of trees etc. , nor do they account for the inevitable human error, I say "I know better than the standards".. If that makes me sound arrogant, then so be it..

 

Pruning standards are for people that don't understand the "why".. great for training newbies, but very lacking in their ability to be relevant in the wide variety of real world scenarios faced by the practicing arb..

 

We were all trained in school to just "follow the rules". Do it by the book, conform, don't think for yourself.. So many arbs are stuck on the "rules".. ie ALL STUBS ARE BAD.. I've transcended that.. I think for myself. You can call it a "God complex".. I call it common sense... And ten people telling me different isn't going to change my mind...

 

I'll listen to an intelligent argument, and respond with mine, but there isn't much of that going on here or on other boards.. It is either personal insults and ridicule or simply blind obedience to the sacred standards..

[dadio]

Shoot me down in a ball of flames if I'm off track but the damage from sun scorch looked old and the the decay cavities would be extensive.

If the tree was in it's declining phase but responds well to the pruning then it will become heavier with regrowth and will suffer increased wind pressure.

Why on earth would you use 'through bolts' on thin snappy declining Maple stems when Cobra is available, not harmful to the tree and is much easier to use.

And finally - stubbs!!!! Between 4 & 5 minutes on the video there are loads of them. Most maples will sprout very well from stubs like that. 3-6 rapid growing vertical shoots.

 

I seriously doubt that the tree will respond with a lot of re-growth, and would bet money that the stubs are going to die, rather than re-sprout new growth. I can go back and check for ya if you like..

 

I suppose the cobra would have been a good choice for that situation, but I have never used it.. Call me a late bloomer... That said, I use a gas drill and have no problem installing steel... Nor do I question the ability of the cable to support the main branch union for the next 15 years. The cable is high enough that there will be relatively little force on it, and I have no worries about it either failing or breaking out the cabled limbs.

[gibbon]

Daniel most of your pionts are valid, but sometimes you come across ad very full of yourself and unable to consider other peoples points. Rightly or wrongly, you seem to use a bucket truck for the majority of your work. In your felling videos you use this to rigg up complex systems to fell trees others would simply climb.

 

Your pionts on stubs are valid here, the tree is in decline and I agree that they are irrelevant.the trouble is many of us contractors have a hard time with trying to educate customers on the benefits of proper pruning. Is your customer going to accept that the stubs you left are ok when every other arborist is pointing out the stubs on a neighbouring tree when they need to show an example of poor pruning? I think the real reason you are leaving stubs is that sometimes you can't quite get into a good position with your bucket and you are reluctant to get your harness on to tidy up the odd cut.

 

Lastly, without watching it all back, I think you decided to brace the limb prior to inspecting the union. Would it not have been easy enough to inspect it from your platform before advising on the cable?

[18 stoner]

Shigo had it wrong,

 

Daniel, you seem to have some sort of God complex, shooting down anyone else's valid opinions

 

Totally agree with you Rob, thats how Daniel comes accross to most.

 

But Daniel, are you saying your variation of Shigo's pruning target theories are better than his as far as the well being of the tree goes, ie, healing times/properties to prevent pathogen encroachment etc?

Edited June 19, 2011 by 18 stoner

[combined tree services]

surely you accept that there is reason for target pruning , leaving a stub on a 1 inch branch may well not form any major decay but it is still a verry viable entry point for FFB's etc and futher more the tree will take longer to compartmentalise thus cration a greater chance of disease . If you are looking at more "modern" methods of tree pruning/care then i would strongly considder using a Cobra type system when bracing trees rather than the older more invasive sytems , neither of which can be guaranteed to be "good for 15 years"

 

Secondly i personally do not feel that you can state the Shigo has got it all wrong when to my knowledge you have not prodused one paper regarding your theories .

[skyhuck]

OK, BUT I gotta call it like I see it.. Shigo had it wrong, when he called for perfect target cuts everytime.. In the real world there are plenty of ambiguous targets that even the best trained and most careful arborists are going to get wrong from time to time.. And then there is the human factor.. People are going to do what they do, which is tending to take the easiest path of least resistance. That ends up with reaching, over extending, using a pole pruner from meters away, and making partially blind cuts, etc., when pruning.. In that respect, asking arbs to make perfect target cuts everytime, is just not realistic. And because violating the living tissue of the remaining stem is far worse than leaving a stub to decay (which trees have been dealing with ever since there was a tree), it is better to leave a stub, than risk violating the parent stem's living tissue.

 

That said... All stubs are not created equal... leaving a short stub, on a branch tip, under 1" in diameter, is pretty much irrelevant. The tree will not be better off with a "proper" cut, made in that situation. On more significant cuts made on the main stem, it is well worth the time to make a careful target cut, when there is a clear target. When there is not a clear target, as is often the case, it is better to err on the side of leaving a small stub.

 

Shigo's background was from forrestry and many of his early papers had to do with wood discoloration and decay resulting from pruning/wounding.. This focus on wood value, is much different than the arborist's focus on structural safety.. Trees in general can deal with a good bit of decay, and survive well.. The type of decay that results from leaving a small stub, in general is not the type of decay that causes trees to fail, where as the type of decay that results from violating the tissue of the parent stem can be catastrophic..

 

Since pruning standards do not account for the size and placement of stubs, and the species of trees etc. , nor do they account for the inevitable human error, I say "I know better than the standards".. If that makes me sound arrogant, then so be it..

 

Pruning standards are for people that don't understand the "why".. great for training newbies, but very lacking in their ability to be relevant in the wide variety of real world scenarios faced by the practicing arb..

 

We were all trained in school to just "follow the rules". Do it by the book, conform, don't think for yourself.. So many arbs are stuck on the "rules".. ie ALL STUBS ARE BAD.. I've transcended that.. I think for myself. You can call it a "God complex".. I call it common sense... And ten people telling me different isn't going to change my mind...

 

I'll listen to an intelligent argument, and respond with mine, but there isn't much of that going on here or on other boards.. It is either personal insults and ridicule or simply blind obedience to the sacred standards..

 

I think you may be describing yourself there and not the average UK arb, most of us climb the tree (unlike your self, who seems to prefer your bucket truck or pole pruner or both) so we tend to be very close to the work and able to get a good position to make a good cut.

[dadio]

This may be a major difference between the US and England... There is no requirement for training in the US. The results are evident in a drive through any suburban neighborhood, especially in looking at the results in line clearance. Thee poor trees have been improperly pruned, with cuts made that violate the living tissue of the parent stem being omnipresent, as is the resulting decay, which often compromised the structural integrity of the tree. In my area of the US, the results of this improper pruning are EVERYWHERE!!!

 

Perhaps the regulation in England, that require every arborist to have a proper training in the importance of making target cuts, result in far less of this type of damage. However, humans are still going to make mistakes.. either because the exact target is hard to determine, or out of laziness/production over perfection...

 

When there is an important cut, (to the tree) I take the time to make the best cut I can. ie on many old dead stubs on mature trees, the living tissue grows over the stub in an irregular way. I take the time to look around to the back and under sides of the cut and peel away the dead bark, to make sure I don't accidentally cut through the living tissue. I've never seen anyone else, even the "best" guys around, do the same, and they make mistakes.

 

Trees have been able to successfully compartmentalize decay from shedding limbs naturally for thousands of years.. they can in general, handle the decay that results from leaving a stub. This phobia of stubs is a misconception in the industry. Knowing when its important to make a good target cut, and when its important to make sure you don't violate the living tissue of the parent stem by leaving a small stub, and when leaving a stub is irrelevant to the tree's health, requires an understanding of trees and an open mind.. you will not find that understanding in a training manual.

 

I actually have written a paper on the subject some years ago, but have not published it yet.