Bundle 2

" I did the reduction with my new '0200 PS " Oh yeah...dont know what the hell youre talking about mate!!! What did it make of the physical appearance of the roots adjacent to the stem ? What sort of reduction did it represent in real terms...? How much decay is present in the root system ? Got any b4 and after pics...? cheers

" reductions of any shape or form only add insult to injury imo.. " Got to agree here......I feel as though John has decided to punish the tree cos I felt he answered my question insufficiently....re: risk assessment? I can only assume you have understood the physiological implications of this decision as they will play out for the tree.....Also goes without saying you have read and understood the nature of this decay fungus' strategy and the likely implications here also......? Perhaps you would like to expand on your recommendations and the reasoning behind eh? ( if that is not too cheeky...you did say it was a intended as a useful exercise )

" The next one is tentatively scheduled for the end of Feb, somewhere in the NW " David, I have e-mailed thru the CAS website an interest in attending this course.....I am assuming this is still the an effective method of notification.....? cheers.

" Helliwell score might be lower than it should. " So you havent used it ? It is a system and can give some broad ranging results ..... " Targets – must be considered high, both people and property are potentially at risk." This is a bit woolly.....but further believe you should be target lead in your assessment. Suggest a quantified assessment....QTRA " , i wouldn't suggest a heavy reduction or pollard, perhaps monitor the tree and check for any progressing signs of ill-health/stree i.e. an abundance of epicormic growth, reduced annual extension growth, induced foliage etc...." Personally liking this suggestion quite alot!

TPO..? Amenity value assessed? Targets? "Be a shame to lose it or reshape it...." My sentiments exactly.

" I've put together a PDF so you can see what we found....." Thanx for posting.... " This isn't particularly related, but here's a Grafted Copper I've got...." I ve seen that one before....extraordinary beast....It so exactly illustrates the notion of Shigo's new tree/old tree....Would be interesting to learn of your findings Marcus...

" We already know about the magic tree..." quote; Showing my ignorance but you've lost me here....! " so a chemical signal is not beyond the realms of possibility. "quote; It certainly isnt if you consider production of nitrogen compounds in the wood infected by pathogens and again, the waterlogged root systems' generation of ethylene...stress seems to have some interesting chemical associations in tree response.....( albeit most often in favor of the pathogens? )

Some interesting info mate.......This is taken from a QTRA tech note , references duly noted... "Using the proposed system, the assessment of the same tree by different inspectors not trained to a unifying standard has produced variable results, comparison of which indicates that a common standard of training in tree inspection is required. Matheny and Clark (1994) asserted that "Training of personnel in field assessment is absolutely essential" and "Perhaps the most important aspect of training is to develop consistent evaluation procedures, amongst individuals and over time". Experience of the proposed system reinforces the view that the training of personnel involved in the inspection and assessment of trees is in need of standardisation. ' Further there appears to be an issue as to the language being used.....?

Nice pics mate....!

Sorry....perhaps I was taking that out of context but it seemed reasonable to seek clarification and postulate as to whether this is observable in other tree species....

"One curious thing is that I am coming to the conclusion that in some circumstances Ustulina can encourage epicormic growth??? ..." On Beech ......?

" The recorded surveys and inspections are carried out mainly by internal (very occasionally external) competent* Arborists, holding (as proscribed by our local Tree Risk Policy) a minimum PTI or equivalent...." Thank you for opening the arena or scope perhaps of what we are talking about.....

" Sorry to join in on this thread you two seem to have something going on..." Not atall man...its a forum afterall eh! "regardless of your Quals or mine...." Who told you I had qualifications...!!! Its all lies man.........

" Barry gets asked to do it anyway regardless of your Quals or mine. " So do we need quals atall...? Especially as we have just trained Baz to some unrecognized level that is neither arb nor gardener..... edit Note...." ...none of which is a problem though..."

" If he spots something odd - he can give an Arb a ring " Sorry but I do not consider this to be an inspection...or an assessment...and barely does it constitute a survey and to add insult to injury, he has no recognised qualification.....none of which is a problem though as there has been no arboricultural involvement perhaps.....however this would satisfy owner/occ lia act 1957/84 What doesnt ring true... " That way, his boss has the money to pay for tree work instead of paying for paperwork..." Has he not just paid to have Barry trained in something that he has no formal qualification in, and as a result...and again, to add insult to injury, he is in no position to do anything about anyway except call in an arb, costing his boss more money..... So we f***up, the law is changed to raise the bar of professional standards but instead, the trainers devise quals that are not aimed at arbs and rake whatever profit seems right as a consequence and all in the name of the law...beam me up scotty, I think Im about to get whooped!!

This the project you had in mind........ " At the end of last year the Greater Norwich Development Partnership (GNDP) agreed their preferred option for the housing growth in and around the city and said the area could cope with 21,000 homes between now and 2026 with another 2,000 in Mangreen from 2018. This includes a possible eco-town in Rackheath....." edp 16/1/09

" You don't always need fully qualified and experienced arbs to inspect trees. The courts have shown that they are happy (in some circumstances) to discharge the duty of care on the basis of a layman / basic opinion.... " Kind of think that the standards are aware of this in that it seems to be reflected in the stance they take with this aspect of the industries practice. Having said that, it seems fairly clear that in certain circumstances, an inspection will need to be " escalated "...but that this mechanism is designed to reach a conclusion...and this also is I think acknowledged by the standards. "Now, I'm not saying that applies to all circumstances but that's kind of where we're going with some recent cases and the Lantra Basic tree inspection course (note a course not a qual)... " Care to elaborate on this mate? " we manage is such a small piece of the pie....." " There aren't enough of us. " There would seem to be an interesting issue here abouts.....

" I doubt we'll ever have a industry set standard for this ....." For as long as laws are continued to be generated and the HSE deems it necessary, standards are a logical extension of the "litigious" animal...and whilst not strictly industry lead...this will need to be expertly informed if it is to have any real basis or place in the physical world....? Consider the QTRA system for example....a "not necessarily arborist lead tree risk quantification system ".....Or are we saying you need to be qualified and so trained to do a certain job....god forbid!!

" ndeed Tim - ultimatley though; it rests on a judgement of competentance and reasonable practicality. " Does it? Really? Cos I would nt mind bettin' plenty inspections are never scrutinised to such an extent.... "So is there any clear guidelines as to what is formally required to do such work? " You can almost say "being asked/reqiuired " Landowners are expected to comply with "Owners/Occupiers liability Act 1957/84 " and as Tony says, an estate may see one approach as adequate whereas another may indeed not see the same level of management as appropriate....but reading these laws will enhance your interpretation.... An idea that is central to this law is a one word, superbly vague notion...Reasonable...

Cool...Off topic a bit though. ":what legal requirements do you presently need to do this? " As U say, none. The bs provides a guideline, the judge will need to be as coherent in his application of these recs as does the inspector, and there will be no definitive answer...I say Vive la difference.... Which leads me to another issue with regards the inspections. There are recognised quals in this respect. It only comes to court in the event of incident...too late to all intents and purposes imo. ( Not that much cannot be usefully determined from such...) But that this leads to a few too many loopholes thru which to slip.... Employers have as much "duty" as the inspector to ensure the right people are doing jobs for which they are qualified...negligence for me ( and this is an opinion and has no basis in law as far as I am aware....) falls to both, employer & employee ( for sake of argument...contractor whatever...! ) I can see no other intended interpretation of the law?

True enough in absolute terms maybe...but you could still be found to have been negligent, as I believe you posted in a slightly diffrent guise on another thread Tony...which is right and proper imo!! Steve, if this is a serious question, I suggest turning to the BS standards for guidelines, noting I reckon their language and scratching an interpretation this way.....No doubt there will be many an opinion to follow!!

" I'm not sure a stalk is a definite ID feature though... " Yeah, I read that "unhelpful" little addition from Chris Skellern....thanx for nothing methinks.......! Seriously considering investing in some simple light microscopy eqpt' aswell as KOH and starch testing kit myself......Its seems relatively cheap although it will in all likelihood lead to the same same deadends....!! I am guessing that both suspects are tested with the same outcome re lighter test? Its good to see and reinforces the notion that they sure like to keep you guessing.....

so 3 hecs does 1 dwelling x1 yr=10 dwelling for 1 yr =30 hectares..... how long do you want to sustain it? Its never as simple as that mate...if its sustainable, or even sustained...you cannot use that 30 hectares for another 15-20 yrs after first year.....logical conclusion then ( ie x 20 yrs ) = 600 hectares.... On a serious note mate, you could ask at Bayfield hall ( Norfolk/Holt )He is alright, and uses his own timber thinnings as fuel for a quite sophisticated biomass fuel system which heats a number of properties inc the Hall itself.

Did you eyeball yo'self tony?

Im thinking lucidum.....