Amelanchier

Ha ha - that's what I do! Will keep you in mind sir!

Simply put - the theory is that the infusion of Allicin (that is to say the drilling of holes in the tree and the pumping under pressure inot the vascular system) will kill the pathogens resonsible for whatever disorder/disease you wish to cure. A UK consultancy company called JCA have pioneered its use in the UK in association with this company - Allicin treecare They claim to have documented proof from a Dutch research lab ("...internationally highly respected organisation TNO, Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, The Netherlands") that their stabilised compound - NOPEX BK™ cures Horse Chestnut Bleeding Canker, Leaf Miner and kills "fungal mycelia". However, if you scratch the surface of these "test" reports you find that evidence does not support the claims as fully as presented (you'll find the links to these documents on the homepage above). The Bleeding Canker test results show that above an indeterminate threshold (125 -250ppm) Allicin inactivated or inhibited P. syringae (no reference to the exact pathovar) for the duration of the test (8 days). Below that threshold, no effect was found. The test against "fungal mycelium" was undertaken against Aspergillus spp. and showed a inhibition of growth above certain thresholds (25 ppm). And aside from non-independent anecdotal evidence, that is the basis for the treatment. Two short indicative experiments and straight to the market. No information is provided to answer questions about how this is scaled up out of the petri dish or how the concentration is calculated and maintained. No information provided about what happens to P. syringae p.v. aesculi when the treatment ends. No information regarding long term managment or impact on tree health. No information about the effectiveness of the treatment of actual tree fungi good or bad! No information generally really. As you might guess. I'm sceptical.

Nah - just wondering about the mechanism behind the assessment. It might be easy to give the impression of everything being kosher from the office; " Yep, personnel files over here / training evaluations / HAVS assessments/ working time directives opt out etc... all filled out and signed off" but perhaps the employee has never seen any of it or had a propoer chance to read it? Not suggesting that people might be deliberately underhand (in my experience error, forgetfullness and time pressures are more likely) just wondered how the system would pick up those ommissions? I realise time is limited on site (especially if the office part has dragged) but simple question to the employees like "Do you have a copy of your contract?" "Have you been assessed for white finger?" "Do you know what the disciplinary procedure is?" would ensure that the communication was there. I guess the assessor is in the best position to get a feel for the way the company works and as you say would probably do that if they felt something was amiss. Cheers for the reply

Yep its a self study thing. Theres a study guide to base learning on before sitting an assessment. Cheers for the replies guys - it all helps.

Its a level 2 qualification on the NQF Paul, similar to the RFS cert arb.

Ha ha ever the salesman! I'll pass the offer on mate (I'm not a proper ISA man). I was hoping to make it anyway this year so perhaps theres a double whammy oppourtunity!

I'm interested to see what arbtalk members awareness of the ISA Certified Arborist Scheme is. Have you heard of it? If so, do you know what it involves? If you do, are you interested? Comments/reasoning behind your response is appreciated but please vote on the poll before reading on!

Rumbled.

Paul, Just wondering, when assessing potential AAACs do you ask the employees any questions about the various documentation that is required? Presumably there's no point in having a HAVS assessment policy sitting pretty in the office if the bloke on the saw never gets assessed or a grievance and disciplinary policy locked up tight in a cupboard. Cheers

I remember humming dragging-brash-in-the-hot-sun or I-need-a-rake-but-we-have-none... But of course, in my version I fought the tree and my boss won.

Sorry I missed it Nick - will you be putting the results up?

Classic drought symptoms - have you had any rain?

Second guy is Ben (Joe?) Mercer and the third is Hayden Platton - some regulars from the Cutters and Climbers. Good shots John

On reflection, perhaps no. 4 should read "the law is vague". If there was a no. 6 it would read "Be excellent to each other, dude" and no. 7 would require a short air guitar riff.

He was an odd fish. They will of course take any existing guidance into account. Correctly following appropriate guidance diminishes the charge of negligence - its hard to prove someone didn't take reasonable action when they can point to a recognised document and show how they stuck to its requirements.

Indeed, but where do the courts get their guidance in order to determine reasonableness? This document intends to bring together a consensus from a huge range of stakeholders to better inform the public as well as the courts. Its not so much the content, though that is also important, as the fact that its being said by so many different groups. There's no point in our industry producing its own guidance based on its own opinons (BS8516?) - it stinks of nepotism and people rightly disengage from it.

Nope nothing formal or structured. Just an amateur interest - mainly honed whilst on the tools. Ideal for breaking up the monotony of the working week. Much in the same way as I guess you do. Get down from the tree, grab a cup of tea and have a wander.

1. Trees are good 2. They break 3. Its not a big deal 4. The law is complicated 5. Be reasonable

Whilst trapsing behind (ahead?) the living text that is Oliver Rackham at Staverton on Thursday I was accosted by this mighty blighter - The Birch Sawfly (Cimbex femoratus)

As I'm sure you're aware, your extra is one of the Ichneumonidae, the family of parasitic wasps that caused dear ol' Darwin much metaphysical concern.

Just wondered if I was the only member to attend? For those that didn't, you missed out! Barchams stepped up their renowned hospitality to cater for some 200 odd delegates. Although this involved converting the potting machine shed into a conference hall, putting up a huge marquee filled with buffet and providing free umbrellas and goodie bags in their characteristic light pots - none of the usual sense of friendliness and camaraderie were lost. Speakers were Dr Glyn Percival, Andy Hirons and the eponymous Dr Gary Watson - who between them explained current research progress into urban tree selection, planting success, water stress adaptation, nursery stock production, and the implications of root damage (plus plenty more). I'd just like to thank the speakers and obviously all those Barchams for making these seminars and conferences possible.

Or maybe after putting the phone down on the last refusal, the owner might turn his exasperated wife and softly say; "Hmmm, you know, perhaps it is a stupid idea after all - just like the first guy told me it was. If I had taken his expertly conveyed professional advice in the first instance, I wouldn't have wasted weeks of my life. Maybe we should leave the tree alone dear and focus on the making the world a better place with what time we have left." That's why its fun.

Is that the German "You bet"??

A lot depends on the resources of the duty holder. It may not be reasonable for the retailer to prevent people being idiots if there are enough of them... IMO it is reasonable to expect that a tree worker does not knowingly create a hazard even if the employer (homeowner) wants him to against his professional judgement. The tree owner cannot absolve you of your duty of care, thats for the courts to decide. Would you put the gob in a tree and leave it for the owner to backcut if he told you he would sign a disclaimer for your liability?

Regarding the caveat / disclaimer thing - I'm not sure this would carry any weight... You can't sign away your duty of care even if the customer agrees. Negligence is negligence. This is the same issue as you'll see in car parks - items left at owners risk etc. Not true, the car park managers (or tree workers) have a duty of care towards the users of the site and their possessions (or trees). This obviously relates to foreseeable events that it is reasonable to prevent (e.g., it's not reasonable to expect 24 hr armed response units for car thieves or ninja valets, but appropriate lighting and no broken bottles is). It might be argued that subsquent limb failure can be expected to be more likely after the proposed work.