BS3998 2010- putting the specific into specification

[Paul Barton]

Cool, good on you Tony.

 

I am still seeing large contract documents that have non-BS specs on them. It's tricky to produce a tender submission and schedule of rates as part of a bid when the contract spec is not up to spec.

 

It's all arse about face - the client only wants AAAC, CHAS, ISO etc companies but them asks them to price for work that is sub-standard in its specification. The same happens with tenders for surveys - I have come across quite a few that want a tree risk survey or a management survey based on BS5837:2005!!

[Old Mill Tree Care]

Agreed, the very people okaying the specs (TO's) don't IME have a solid grasp of the old doc, let alone the new one! And the vast majority of tree surgeons around my way will twist the specs to suit themselves, and are very generous with their %s on reductions, effectively looping and topping in many cases. Many don't seem to have heard there is a new 3998, one I spoke to thought it was a tractor! They are never questioned by lpa's or anyone else. Without someone enforcing the work done, and maybe treating blatant 'misinterpretation' of specs as damage to tpo'd trees, I don't see the changes it should make becoming a reality anytime soon...

 

 

Agreed, it's a joke. 4 out of the 5 LA's I deal with regularly have little or no grasp at all on the new 3998-2010.

One of the LA's near me acts like they wrote it themselves and while they dictate their own version to me and most other contractors, the 'favoured contractors' blunder on with complete impunity as the LA conducts itself with total autonomy, knowing they are answerable to no one!

[Treecreeper1961]

The standard is a lengthy and technical document. If we attempt to follow it in practice it is going to mean some big changes in the way we do things and probably make our working lives more difficult.(Sorry, by we I am generalising I know).

The thing that is difficult to admit is that most of what we do to trees in the name of arboriculture does nothing to help the tree at all, in fact every pruning cut we make is an injury to the tree and the bigger the cut the more serious the implications to energy, vitality and physiological integrity of the tree as well as later mechanical integrity. We cut trees to suit our ourselves not our trees. Ok, sorry, I don't mean to sound patronising, most of us know this is the case and my own work generally ends up as tree raping to be honest. The point is that the new standard brings our management objectives and doing least damage to the tree closer together.

There is so much scientific knowledge and understanding of tree biology and physiology now and in the BS3998:2010 we have been given a manual of how to achieve what people want without unwittingly bringing a very premature end to the life of a tree.

There is no doubt that there are circumstances where the recommendations are impracticable and impossible to implement. Not all trees lend themselves to precise radial reductions, sometimes the outer edge of the canopy has formed and divided far out on branches and there are no suitable laterals to prune back to at the specified distance. Other trees will be so thin and fragile out at the specified distance that it will be dangerous for man and tree to get out there.

There will be many "management objectives" that cannot be met by adhering to the document. Providing value to the customer that want's more light by giving a tree a 12% radial reduction might be impossible.Perhaps it may result in more removals.

Educating the customer will be a challenge if we attempt to make such a change to the way tree work is done and perceived.

One of the key things about tightening up on specifying reductions accurately is ensuring that the tree is not robbed of so much photosynthetic material that it's reserves of carbohydrate are used up to replenish them. There is a huge difference in leaf area removed by a 12 and 30% radial reduction, perhaps as much as 30% down to 90%. The long term implications for the tree might not be obvious but trees rely on energy reserves for many functions .

The recommendations for total cross sectional area of pruning cuts not to exceed one third of total cross section of the stem at 1.5m is at first straight forward enough. When I considered the examples given in table 1, 7.2.4, page22, I struggled to believe the maths but it does all add up, now that I know how to work out the area of a circle.

It is all too easy to exceed these figures, especially when crown lifting. This is a good practical guide.

The recommendation for stages or phases in tree work reduce the stress and physiological dysfunction within the tree makes sense to me but I'm not sure it will to the customers. If they want what's best for the tree and we can communicate these recommendations to them, then it will work. However, it will mean an ongoing commitment from them, which will be good for business.

Giving greater consideration to the condition of the rooting environment makes total sense. Recommending mulching could add to revenue and be good for the tree but are there potential pit falls here? How much do we/I know about the correct and best way to mulch?

Damage to the roots and rhizosphere during tree work is something I never used to consider, but it should be given careful thought. Two days of trampling around under a tree and dropping missiles into the soil is bound to do some harm. What can we do about that whilst remaining competitive? Mulch to the drip line before starting work?

Anyway, I'm boring myself now.

It is the future, it is about educating ourselves and the client but it is going to take a long time to make it the general standard of tree work in my opinion. It is a really good document, even if it causes a few inconvenient difficulties in the conscience.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Cool, good on you Tony.

 

I am still seeing large contract documents that have non-BS specs on them. It's tricky to produce a tender submission and schedule of rates as part of a bid when the contract spec is not up to spec.

 

It's all arse about face - the client only wants AAAC, CHAS, ISO etc companies but them asks them to price for work that is sub-standard in its specification. The same happens with tenders for surveys - I have come across quite a few that want a tree risk survey or a management survey based on BS5837:2005!!

 

I find all this rather bizzare to be honest, I mean, arent we supposed to be the "coalfaced" lot?

 

I think there is something inherently wrong when the top end is falling behind those at the bottom of the food chain!

 

It stinks for many reasons but for me it shows in all who fail to uphold such standards a great lack of atention to thier profesion and on some level a little disrespect for all those people who put in a lot of time and effort in the bakground of arb to make us all better at what we do and also raise the standing of our profesion as a whole.

 

I know a few of the people who gave a lot of time to this standard, and think its a slap in thier faces when it is proving to be largley ignored.

 

If I put in all that work and no one took notice I would be rolling heads!

[Old Mill Tree Care]

I find all this rather bizzare to be honest, I mean, arent we supposed to be the "coalfaced" lot?

 

I think there is something inherently wrong when the top end is falling behind those at the bottom of the food chain!

 

It stinks for many reasons but for me it shows in all who fail to uphold such standards a great lack of atention to thier profesion and on some level a little disrespect for all those people who put in a lot of time and effort in the bakground of arb to make us all better at what we do and also raise the standing of our profesion as a whole.

 

I know a few of the people who gave a lot of time to this standard, and think its a slap in thier faces when it is proving to be largley ignored.

 

If I put in all that work and no one took notice I would be rolling heads!

 

Well said Hama. That's exactly what I just came back on here to say.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

The standard is a lengthy and technical document. If we attempt to follow it in practice it is going to mean some big changes in the way we do things and probably make our working lives more difficult.(Sorry, by we I am generalising I know).

The thing that is difficult to admit is that most of what we do to trees in the name of arboriculture does nothing to help the tree at all, in fact every pruning cut we make is an injury to the tree and the bigger the cut the more serious the implications to energy, vitality and physiological integrity of the tree as well as later mechanical integrity. We cut trees to suit our ourselves not our trees. Ok, sorry, I don't mean to sound patronising, most of us know this is the case and my own work generally ends up as tree raping to be honest. The point is that the new standard brings our management objectives and doing least damage to the tree closer together.

There is so much scientific knowledge and understanding of tree biology and physiology now and in the BS3998:2010 we have been given a manual of how to achieve what people want without unwittingly bringing a very premature end to the life of a tree.

There is no doubt that there are circumstances where the recommendations are impracticable and impossible to implement. Not all trees lend themselves to precise radial reductions, sometimes the outer edge of the canopy has formed and divided far out on branches and there are no suitable laterals to prune back to at the specified distance. Other trees will be so thin and fragile out at the specified distance that it will be dangerous for man and tree to get out there.

There will be many "management objectives" that cannot be met by adhering to the document. Providing value to the customer that want's more light by giving a tree a 12% radial reduction might be impossible.Perhaps it may result in more removals.

Educating the customer will be a challenge if we attempt to make such a change to the way tree work is done and perceived.

One of the key things about tightening up on specifying reductions accurately is ensuring that the tree is not robbed of so much photosynthetic material that it's reserves of carbohydrate are used up to replenish them. There is a huge difference in leaf area removed by a 12 and 30% radial reduction, perhaps as much as 30% down to 90%. The long term implications for the tree might not be obvious but trees rely on energy reserves for many functions .

The recommendations for total cross sectional area of pruning cuts not to exceed one third of total cross section of the stem at 1.5m is at first straight forward enough. When I considered the examples given in table 1, 7.2.4, page22, I struggled to believe the maths but it does all add up, now that I know how to work out the area of a circle.

It is all too easy to exceed these figures, especially when crown lifting. This is a good practical guide.

The recommendation for stages or phases in tree work reduce the stress and physiological dysfunction within the tree makes sense to me but I'm not sure it will to the customers. If they want what's best for the tree and we can communicate these recommendations to them, then it will work. However, it will mean an ongoing commitment from them, which will be good for business.

Giving greater consideration to the condition of the rooting environment makes total sense. Recommending mulching could add to revenue and be good for the tree but are there potential pit falls here? How much do we/I know about the correct and best way to mulch?

Damage to the roots and rhizosphere during tree work is something I never used to consider, but it should be given careful thought. Two days of trampling around under a tree and dropping missiles into the soil is bound to do some harm. What can we do about that whilst remaining competitive? Mulch to the drip line before starting work?

Anyway, I'm boring myself now.

It is the future, it is about educating ourselves and the client but it is going to take a long time to make it the general standard of tree work in my opinion. It is a really good document, even if it causes a few inconvenient difficulties in the conscience.

 

a most excellent post sir:five:

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Well said Hama. That's exactly what I just came back on here to say.

 

needed saying didnt it!

[Treecreeper1961]

a most excellent post sir:five:

 

Cheers.

We can all talk though. It is a bit hypocritical to praise the thing whilst less than covering my self in glory at times. I wan't to be good. Sadly, I don't always or often specify the work I do, should fight to educate those that do but don't always as it doesn't go down very well with some people. Even when I do specify work and, for example, talk clients round to a phased reduction on an old oak near their house I find myself changing my prescription whilst doing the job, due to fears for mechanical integrity, resulting in an internal conflict, as well as the shortening of some large branches to points that did not meet the standard at all. The more I learn the harder it is to satisfy myself I am doing the right thing.

There is a class system in arboriculture, the unclean, the uneducated, the educated a long time ago and can't accept what they once knew is now old hat,those who want to be clean and those who's gleaming, shiny foreheads stand out.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Cheers.

We can all talk though. It is a bit hypocritical to praise the thing whilst less than covering my self in glory at times. I wan't to be good. Sadly, I don't always or often specify the work I do, should fight to educate those that do but don't always as it doesn't go down very well with some people. Even when I do specify work and, for example, talk clients round to a phased reduction on an old oak near their house I find myself changing my prescription whilst doing the job, due to fears for mechanical integrity, resulting in an internal conflict, as well as the shortening of some large branches to points that did not meet the standard at all. The more I learn the harder it is to satisfy myself I am doing the right thing.

There is a class system in arboriculture, the unclean, the uneducated, the educated a long time ago and can't accept what they once knew is now old hat,those who want to be clean and those who's gleaming, shiny foreheads stand out.

 

there are some of us who do not recognise this class system and are chalenging those even of the highest rank. It is nothing to o ith class or education.

 

as individuals we can all be great arbs, we just have to strive to be the best we can be, and when you feel happy within your skin as an arb, you too will fail to see any boundaries in arb.

[RobArb]

there are some of us who do not recognise this class system and are chalenging those even of the highest rank. It is nothing to o ith class or education.

 

as individuals we can all be great arbs, we just have to strive to be the best we can be, and when you feel happy within your skin as an arb, you too will fail to see any boundaries in arb.

 

True,

 

I've upset a few people above me on the rung of the ladder because i felt they didn't have a clue, but i did it nicely (most of the time) and in the end some of them listened, if we all do our bit, our time will come:thumbup: