What is a pollard?

[mdvaden]

Just found something that has clarified it a bit for me. Basically a pollard is to cut off the top and branches of a tree to encourage new growth at the top but it can only be classed as a pollard if it's done to young trees. Is that correct? And also that if the same procedure is performed to mature trees it is just classed as topping?

 

Age is not as important as style.

 

It can be done to an older bigger tree ... but to keep the cuts similar size, the pollard would just be bigger, taller, larger.

 

Young or old, they can both be pollarded, along with complete pruning every year.

 

Even with small trees, I consider pollarding to be topping ... a manicured topping

[treeseer]

Mario you're on point: Age is not as important as style. It all depends on architecture, which determines plumbing, and energy flow.

 

It can be indeed be done to an older bigger tree ... to keep the cuts similar size relative to proportion, the pollard would just be bigger, taller, larger.

A synonym for 'retrenchment pruning' is 'progressive pollarding'.

As long as the health and structure of the tree are maintained, those traditional mathematic guidelines don't apply as much as with younger trees.

 

Young or old, they can both be pollarded, along with periodic pruning: but how long a period; how long a lapse is too long? I recently inspected some oaks that were cut back after ice damage in 2002. The owner likes them full; I arranged to reinspect in a year, hoping to sell codom work then, but it's far from hazardous.

 

When definitions are vague, misunderstanding is inevitable. BS says it's the removal of most or all of the crown of a mature tree by indiscriminately

cutting through the main stem. US says it's excessive cutting, often internodal (used to say 'predetermined'), and done without regard for the the health and structure of the tree.

 

So for example, a reduction of ~9%/dose, 1-3 meter lengths, <10 cm cuts is not an uncommon programme to follow on hollow old trees.

Edited September 12, 2014 by treeseer

[Stereo]

This is a great thread.

[Chris at eden]

Age is not as important as style.

 

It can be done to an older bigger tree ... but to keep the cuts similar size, the pollard would just be bigger, taller, larger.

 

Young or old, they can both be pollarded, along with complete pruning every year.

 

Even with small trees, I consider pollarding to be topping ... a manicured topping

 

 

It seems that pollarding may be something different in the UK to the USA. We have a British standard that clearly details it as a professional pruning standard and only to be initiated on young trees with a stem diameter of less than 200mm.

 

I dont personally think it can be done to mature trees and still called pollarding, that would be topping. The effect on the mass/energy ratio would be more severe, surely????

 

Additionally you have to think about the original use of this technique. I doubt whether medievil woodland owners were harvesting pollard re-growth from 25m!!! It would have been done just high enough to prevent cattle grazing of the fresh shoots.

[Chris at eden]

When definitions are vague, misunderstanding is inevitable. BS says it's the removal of most or all of the crown of a mature tree by indiscriminately

cutting through the main stem. US says it's excessive cutting, often internodal (used to say 'predetermined'), and done without regard for the the health and structure of the tree.

 

 

 

I have no idea what the ANSI (if thats the correct name) says about pollarding but i am pretty confident the BS (British Standard) does not say that! If you can point me tho the page where it states that i will be happy to check my facts and get back to you.

 

Sorry but i dont agree.

[JLA Arborists]

[treeseer]

BS 3998 says that *topping* is 'the removal of most or all of the crown of a mature tree by indiscriminately cutting through the main stem." PAGE 8.

 

The text on pollarding--thanks to JLA--uses qualifiers like 'preferably' and 'should'. Where the confusion really kicks in is when those conditional terms are misinterpreted as absolutes. BS3998 did not 'clearly detail' these parameters, or say they are the 'only' sizes and stages where pollarding can be done. Myths are borne of exaggeration.

 

We have different objectives than serfs did back in 1600, so strictly adhering to their limitations seems a bit out of place. Plus, I doubt those serfs would have refused to pollard a tree just because it was over an arbitrary measurement like 200 mm. But in any case, this is 2014, and if the objective is to preserve big old trees we must shed the shackles of past paradigms.

[Chris at eden]

BS 3998 says that *topping* is 'the removal of most or all of the crown of a mature tree by indiscriminately cutting through the main stem." PAGE 8.

 

The text on pollarding--thanks to JLA--uses qualifiers like 'preferably' and 'should'. Where the confusion really kicks in is when those conditional terms are misinterpreted as absolutes. BS3998 did not 'clearly detail' these parameters, or say they are the 'only' sizes and stages where pollarding can be done. Myths are borne of exaggeration.

 

We have different objectives than serfs did back in 1600, so strictly adhering to their limitations seems a bit out of place. Plus, I doubt those serfs would have refused to pollard a tree just because it was over an arbitrary measurement like 200 mm. But in any case, this is 2014, and if the objective is to preserve big old trees we must shed the shackles of past paradigms.

 

The post isn't about topping its about pollarding. The chap from Oregon seems to think they are the same thing to which you were agreeing. I just don't agree. You kind of missed the end of that paragraph also where it says 'this (topping) is not the same as pollarding'. There is nothing ambiguous there.

 

The reason the bs uses words such as should is because its recommendations or guidance, I can't say anything else. When writing an instruction or specification the tree advisor should change the wording to must or shall. If David Lonsdale thought it was a good idea to pollard 25m trees then why is it not in the standard. I agree though that the terminology used is not helpful.

 

The chap who first posted is asking what pollarding is. Essentially it's what the current bs says it is in the uk. If he turns up to meet a tree officer and asks if he can pollard a 25m tree he is going to look a bit daft especially as TPO officers will always condition compliance with bs3998.

 

I'm not saying you can't top trees higher up as some times you may have to, but I just don't think that is pollarding.

[Mark Bolam]

The difference between topping and pollarding is about £300.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[Joe Newton]

Are you sure?

 

 

 

If someone did a genuine pollard to Leyland Cypress, I would expect them to die and not recover ... not in the same way as Yew, for example.

 

 

I think he's joking that he has a conny hedge

 

Keep up mate!