Pollards, the forgotten art-discussion

Po!la*d-a four letter word?

One could be forgiven for thinking it is! I am almost afraid to mention the word in today’s arboricultural scene, but am I the only one who thinks it a little ironic that we now revere the very trees that where pruned in such a way we might now lynch those doing it? Is pollarding really to be considered the ultimate sin? Or is there just a lack of insight into the merits and de merits of each case, and a fear of retribution for going out on a limb and making the choice. At this time it’s a brave man that suggests “sensitive pruning” isn’t always the right approach. As a climber of 20 odd years I have done my fair share of old and veteran trees, and had to pollard (oops, blasphemy!) some for spurious reasons, not having been the one responsible for the job specification. If there is one thing I have gained through my successes and failures it is insight, a “feel” for the tree and its life from seed to senescence, its grace and ultimate glory as a grandfather of time.

Thanks to the likes of Neville Fay and Ted green MBE the arb world is more enlightened on the whole subject of ancient trees and veteranisation, and the world seems to be awakening to a new understanding. We have come almost full circle, we grew a distain for harsh techniques and Hepting/ Shigo and others exposed the issues with poor pruning and treatments. A refined approach was born and some of us went on to become masters of the art in fine tip reductions in respect of this new knowledge. We stopped over lifting tree canopies and crucified the “over thinners” we mobbed the “purveyor’s of pollard”. While all this was going on a few of us “labourers” where reading up and taking notes, watching the debates and doing what we where told was the “best practice”.

“I’m not suggesting we abandon this approach, preservation of amenity is a different game altogether”

Now it is our turn to give some input to the debate, and I am certain there will be many “old school” climbers ready to join in. The one thing that is blindingly obvious to me is that very little respect is paid to the “experience factor” it is all well and good educating yourself and gaining a degree in arboriculture, but you can never learn from books what you learn by feel; and trees, though they may be the substance (paper) of text books, rarely are trees text book in nature. I mean no disrespect to the “consultants” but you really should pay more heed to the views and experience of climbers. The older climbers have a body of experience gained from a time when we just got on with it, rounding over, pollarding etc. We might never consider doing it these days but we know HOW to do it and how to do it well, skills that are being lost on a generation of climbers who only know the way it is today.

What this will mean in a decade or two is that people with the very skills the veteran brigade seek to re learn will be lost, how hard can you prune? Where can we make that cut for the best compromise of vascular support and minimal dysfunction? Have we not learnt just how resilient trees can be? Decay and dysfunction are part and parcel of a trees old age, be that from natural progressive infections or via pruning wounds, they are the same end result so why fear them? I am sick to my teeth of being told I can not do this and I can not do that, when I have all my life proven time and time again that it CAN be done, but it has to be with “insight” I fear if we don’t settle the debate soon a whole gap will appear in the generations of veterans as the old ones die while we are all trying to “rediscover” the old ways. The Japanese have been “veteranising” for a thousand years, albeit on a different scale, the principles are the same. The art of producing a miniature ancient tree of visual stature and form is the same art required to recreate the ancient pollards and veterans of the medieval era. You just have to think BIG.

I have seen some ridiculous attempts at re creating the pollard, and some pretty dire attempts at recession pruning, so bad in fact I doubt Mr X in his white transit with traces of tarmac could do a worse job! I can no longer remain silent walking the old deer parks and seeing trees unmulched unfenced and unloved, they are as much a part of our green and pleasant lands history as any building or monument yet they are left to fend for themselves much of the time despite all the current knowledge available. We need to re-evaluate the pollard fast and to think of pollarding as an option for those old trees considered for felling due to various defects, infections or even subsidence issues. I do not mean the way its done on LA budgets either for those thinking along those lines!

Some people in the field are of the opinion that pollarding was carried out when the tree was young and while this may be true in today’s scene, it was certainly not the case in the medieval period or Tudor period. I am well aware that there exist few records of the pollarding of old. However the tree is a record of its life, it tells us like a book of a thousand pages what events took place in its life, and when. One only has to look at those old pollards of Burnham to see that pollarding was a brutal practice; the evidence is in the hollow centres. We only have to look at compartmentalisation to see how large the tree was when it was Pollarded. The now hollow stems are the new wood that formed over the dysfunctional core. While the living cambium continued to grow over the now dead part, the demons of D, death, decay and dysfunction (Shigo), moved in and had a tasty supper of lignin and/or cellulose.

I think there was two ways possibly three of pollarding, and certain that Arborist’s of the time much like the good ones today had a “feel” for their art. I am certain that a tree that had previously been un-pollarded would have had the two major lower limbs left on and been decapitated above this point. This guaranteed that the tree would continue to grow and survive the loss of its head, like the “monarchs without head” a form that is made perfectly naturally. We have to realise that in those times text books where the preserve of the wealthy, these where craftsman whose skills where passed on to a new generation of apprentices. They also had the luxury of more trees to make mistakes with, if one or two died it was no big deal, it made good firewood! Today if we gambled with one of say three oaks on a site we would be justifiably lynched if they was to die from such a brutal practice.

Now going back to the monarch without head, I am certain that once good re growth was established and of much more slender proportions the now only substantial wood left was also highly desirable and those limbs originally left in place where now cut back to some re growth on their length. I am certain it was this process that created those extraordinarily wide shoulders or “pollard heads” we now see especially in the Burnham beech trees. This is also evident in the way the decay columns extend into the larger thicker sections of these old pollard heads.

This brings me to the whole demons of D thing again, and I think we need to understand these processes far better if we are to re create our heritage trees for future generations to revere. Its an area of heated debate, and an area that is still to this day largely misunderstood and understudied. I hope to convince the sceptical of the role fungi play in the longevity of trees; this is a co evolutionary process that has gone on for millennia. I have a disdain for the word attack when it comes to fungi, and prefer to think of it as taking advantage of a situation. As with all natural organisms and systems they have a role and a purpose, they are essential and should not be viewed as an “enemy”

I think there may have been a time in history, and not so long ago, when mans activities actualy enhanced Bio diversity, rather than eliminated it. We are losing our way, its time to re think our strategies.

View full article

Really intersting thread Tony

I believe that under the umbrella of respect for what our forefathers have taught us, it's should be our legacy to educate and push the boundaries of Arboriculture.

One of the aspects that should be challenged & observed over time is the retention of what would "normally" be removed.

Topparding has it's place, we need to give the oportunity & luxury of time for Trees to adapt to any reduction works.

They do not fit in within our time spans.

This is an Oak at Golders Hill park, that was topped after the Great Storm, subsequently we have enclosed & mulched.

Looks like a fine Tree to me, it is full of vigour, and the epicormic that established it's new canopy may not be as well anchored as if they were from initial form, but with retrenchment, this old hulk should perpetuate for decades to come.

.

Nice Dave.

What an interesting post

I like pollards too, they used to be common as boundary markers because of their distinctive form but I guess that with decent maps, GIS and satnav there isn't so much need.

Perhaps it's worth starting a Pollard photo thread, to get some examples in case people want to try one themselves. I can upload some pollarded Hornbeam and Ash pics to it, the Hornbeam seems to pollard well, most of mine are healthy and attractive trees.

This thread is going to be added to just give me time, you going to like this one! I am adding to it as we speak to show you all some theories i have.

it takes time to put my things together i have many tens of thousasnds of photos to trawl through for the right examples, but i hope in a few posts to, show what is for me the most remarkable prosces in the tree. this is hw i get my rocks off, understanding the tree and its relationship with fungi. they have evolved to "assist" eachother by "natural inclusion" they do not fight eachother, this is not what we percieve.

monkey, thats a corking example, I love it

understanding the tree and its relationship with fungi. they have evolved to "assist" eachother by "natural inclusion" they do not fight eachother, this is not what we percieve.

 

Not sure the large Beech in my lake that failed due to giant polypore would agree.

nature has a way of dealing with the trials of life, like some form of dark magic, we try hard to make it understandable, mostly for our purposes and financial gain. research funding is all about corporate businesses wanting, seeking to profit from natures voodoo, one day we shall see this change and another direction and understanding found. but thats for another thread already started, i digress!

back to the subject in hand...

Part of the miss understanding of the pollard is its method, we fear losing a tree, but in nature this is part and parcel of the system, the forest. What we fail to see is that this whole pollarding business is in fact something that trees and fungi have turned into an art form, we simply coppied it, some time in history, probably in many places at the same time or at different times. those men of working lives, this was their lives, and as i have already suggested observational skill is on another level to "scientific understanding"

I have no doubt these ancient foresters knew exactly what they was doing, even when one or two trees were lost in the proscess. certain they saw it as mimicking what is essentialy a natural proscess.

In ancient times, there would have been many more ancient trees in all forms of senessence and rejuvination, it would not have been anywhere near as hard as it is today to make observational learning a very quick schooling.

i wil try to lead a few posts down a route with pictures to understanding why i believe pollarding is no mystery, and why it has so many parrelels in natural tree life proscesses, forms and longevity.

I think you are reading a little to much into this.

Man cut the top of the tree for many reasons. One was because that was were the timber was of the required size and easier to cut.

He also wanted regrowth out of reach of browsing animals, this regrowth was allowed to grow to the size required for the job it was going to be used for.

The tops were also cut of to provided fodder for animals.

There are two ways of looking at this image, discuss what you see here, please i would like to understand what YOU all see.

I think you are reading a little to much into this.

 

Man cut the top of the tree for many reasons. One was because that was were the timber was of the required size and easier to cut.

 

He also wanted regrowth out of reach of browsing animals, this regrowth was allowed to grow to the size required for the job it was going to be used for.

 

The tops were also cut of to provided fodder for animals.

So what made him think this was possible if all these trees died from the shock?

why not just fence them off from the stock?

they biult stone walls to fend timber trees from deer after all!