daltontrees

To those onlookers who haven't used valuation systems, the hypothetical position I think can illustrate an important principle that should always be present in valuations, and that is that the length of time that the benefits of a property can be enjoyed affects its value. What the Helliwell system does amongst other things is multiplies the value of a healthy tree by a fraction that reflects its short future. Thus a tree with long likely lifespan might have a value of £10,000 but one that is the same size you could only expect to have a less than unacceptable risk of 2 to 5 years has a Helliwell value of £10,000 x 1/4. CAVAT does the same thing only, in my opinion, considerably better. iTree doesn't even try. I agree with the principle more wholeheartedly than I do with any other aspect of tree valuation methodologies. iTree fails. CAVAT gets full marks and Helliwell gets half marks for trying.

Here's a simple example of the issues. A midsize tree growing in a front garden, much loved by the owner, is found to have a fungal infection that will cause it to fall over within 10 years. Without this infection, the Helliwell system values it at £10,000 but due to the infection its value is reduced to £2,500. It will cost £1,000 to remove and grind out and a young replacement will cost £500 to plant, stake, mulch and maintain for 2 years. The risk associated with failure is currrently 'tolerable' (1:20,000) because although failure is likely the chance of it hitting anyone or anything is relatively low. However, the insurers will not cover the owners if someone or something is hit. Crown reduction is suggested, but although this will reduce windsail and will temporarily make the tree safer this will reduce the tree's chances of resisting the fungal infection and will cost £250. What does the owner do and why?

As suggested recently elsewhere on Arbtalk by kevnjohnsonmbe, there seems to be interest in a debate about what amenity value really means. So this thread is open for any contributions to the debate. Or anything that anyone wants to put in here like links so that it can serve as a mini resource. The subject has barely been touched upon ever in Arbtalk yet personally I see it lurking in the background of many discussions unable to come forward and speak because it doesn't have the right words to use. I will open it with a few suggestions. First of all, I don't mean wood value or valuation of forestry stock (although there are grey areas in this regard, perhaps that's why 'amenity tree' needs to be defined or we need to talk about the 'amenity' provided by trees whether they are forestry or arboricultural trees). Secondly, opinions will differ about amenity and how it is affected by good or bad management, and unless the debate can gravitate towards objective (or minimally subjective) measures that take the observer's personal views out of the value, then it will all be a big fat waste of time. Thirdly, and in the same vein, I am most interested in a numeric outcome (say ££s) that can be weighed up against tree work costs and property values. Finally, starting off with the intention of keeping it simple seems highly desireable, the simpler it is the more people will use it, but I have spent a lot of time thinking about it and I know it is not simple and never can be. It's like saying accountancy is simple or tree surgery is simple. If contributors all approach the debate not to pick obvious holes in ideas but to try and fix holes by simplifying wherever possible, some consensus might emerge.

I knew I couldn't stop myself. I am going to start another thread about this just now. I don't mean to steal your thunder, but I am laid up with the cold today and have time on my hands to do it. I will put it in the 'General Chat' section and call it something like 'Valuation of Amenity Trees'. See you there, folks?

Sorry, here's a closer shot of the Ff in the last pic. Anyway, these two species don't seem too fussy about co-infection. Pb is a brown rot of the stem, resulting eventually in brittle failure. Ff is a white rot of the stem, often resulting in a still-attached partially brittle partially ductile fracture. Like Jack Sprat and his wife, they appear between them to lick the platter clean. I was unable in a short period to reach any reliable conclusion as to which species came first, whether one operated gnerally higher from the ground than the other or whether there was any conflict in modes of decay between co-infested or secondarily infested stems.

The following pics are not that remarkable, as Fomes fomentarius and Piptoporus betulinus are both very common on birch. I was up near Grantown on Spey and Aviemore at the weekend, first I spotted a couple of nice examples of each species (first and second pics), then two similar Birch stems beside each other, one with Ff and the other with Pb. Finally (last pic, look closely top and bottom) found a stem with both species.

Definitely one for a separate thread. The current preferred mechanism for assessing amenity value in Britain is deeply flawed. Ask a question about tree amenity value in a new thread and I for one will probably be unable to stop myself contributing frankly.

Why was it cut down? I too am curious about the soil. If it is permeable granular stuff then some trees could tolerate that because they can still 'breathe' at the roots.

I take Cod Liver Oil every morning, I can't say whether it works or not because I'd have to stop taking them for a while to see if they are making any difference. But I know that they are a good thing generally. The only other thing I do to see off joint troubles is when I am working really intensively for weeks on end I sleep wearing woolen gloves. A bit weird but my hands and wrists stay hot all night and seem to heal themselves. Worth a try for a few nights, if nothing else it's less creaky to get out of bed in the morning.

If it's a milk cap you won't have to try too hard to get milk from it. One of the things I always find useful to narrow down the identification of fungi, at least the ones with gills, is the gill attachment. Some gills are only attached to the cap and not to the stem (k.a. 'free'). Some run right down the stem (k.a. 'decurrent'). And there is just about every permutation in between. The main thing that made me think these were Paxillus involucra was the definite decurrent gills, although I had to stare at the original photos for a while to convince myself that they were decurrent. With your updated pictures it is much clearer. And with the rim definitely rolling now.

Or could be Paxillus involutus?

Looking alittle further, I see that Stihl's policy is more like 'does not allow delivery of Stihl products bought online or over the phone, unless the dealer conducts (or has previously conducted) a Stihl professional hand-over with the customer or the customer is a known professional. A known professionalí would be someone who has recognised qualifications in the appropriate field for the machinery they are purchasing and/or has dealt with the dealer before.' My supplier is legitimately supplying me, then. If anyone's longstanding Stihl dealer has just recently insisted you come in to collect every time, they may be applying the policy too strictly. If they choose to lose business that way, that's up to them.

I know, but someone else did it on another posting thread recently too, the supplier wouldn't have done it if I hadn't demonstrated my competence with chainsaws by ordering dozens of spares off them int the past.

Quite bizarre spread, tree looks like agiant leafy catapult, client confidentiality prevents me from saying much more than that.

No it's just in woody mulch. I found loads yesterday at the base of a Liriodendron tulipifera, a compression fork at the base had torn off a few years ago, leaving no chance of recovery in that sector. I reckon the root on that side must increasingly be in a bad way.

I think a 2 thread is best for general purpose. A 3 is faster in soft wood, that's the only reason really to use it.

Update: my usual stockist just took the order over the phone, bless them, because I am an existing customer. Took 2 minutes. Parts will be here tomorrow. It's just Stihl that's the bams then, not the sensible stockist.

CURSES to Stihl. Today I wanted to get a filter cover for a 230. That one that you just turn the wee black knob at the back, lift it off, put a new one on and turn the knob again. I could do it behind my back in th dark, in a tree, in a gale. But I have to trudge off somewhere and pick it up so that Mr Stihl's minions can explain to me how to do it safely? And pay twice as much plus the earning time spent getting there and back and listening to instruction that I don't need. CURSES to them and their ludicrous policy. Next time it's a Husky. Or maybe a Makita.

Isnt it a bit risky to be asking for or offering copies of a copyright document on a public forum?

Sorry, can't help because I have never compared mine to any other brand. Basically Sorbus sell Haglof and Mattson. Mine's a Suunto and works perfectly well. They all seem to look and work the same. Just need to decide on 3 thread vs 2 thread depending on whether you are doing mostly hardwoods or softwoods. Ideally one of each.

A crod of wood takes up 3.63m3 but it only contains say 2.4m3 of wood. The rest is spaces. This will bulk out if split and thrown in a bag to about 4.3m3. This would equate to about 7 and a bit builders bags. Answer to second question, it depends on the species. Density varies from say 830kg/m3 for Japanese Larch to 1020kg/m3 for Scots Pine. A 3.63m3 block of the first would weigh 3.0 tonnes. A 3.63m3 block of the latter would weigh 3.7 tonnes. But a cord of wood is 1/3 space between logs. So you can say a cord of the former is 2.0 tonnes and of the latter is 2.5 tonnes.

I feel the same way about the term 'reaction wood'. But maybe that's just ME.

That gravel looks immaculate, I wonder if the driveway gets a heavy dose of weedkiller every year?

Beautifully presented.

Hey I might even remember the archeri bit too now, thanks. So you want to know where the name comes from. Well, clathrus comes from the greek word for cage, which is quite apporopriate for Clathrus ruber (Google it). When C. archeri was discovered it was given a different genus name (Lysurus archeri) but was later reassigned to Clathrus when it was found to be closely related to Clathrus ruber and other stinkhorns. I don't know who Archer was, it was and is common to name new species after patrons, colleagues or even friends. This probably doesn't help.