# Seeking advice for pollarded eucalyptus



## MattB (Jan 23, 2010)

I have been asked to bid on a commercial property with about 40 red gum eucalyptus that have been previously topped at about 25' up. I would guess the trees were topped 8-10 years ago and now many 30' long 5-6" spars are now leaning over the buildings. I have observed that many branches have broken away from the edges of the previous cuts and I suspect that the larger tops are just as likely to have poor connections. 

As a rule I don't top trees but at this point I think the damage may have already been done. I am considering bringing the trees back to previous cuts and recommending that I come back in a couple years to thin the sprouts. 

Has anyone else faced this before? I am going to go visit the site tomorrow, I will try to post pictures.


----------



## MattB (Jan 23, 2010)

I should also make the point that the new tops are bare of lateral branching except at the tips, so there are no places to do a proper cut back to a leader.


----------



## EdenT (Jan 23, 2010)

They are not pollarded. Do not use this word to describe topping. It gives pollarding a bad name, and hacks an excuse to top trees and legitimise it by calling it a fancy name.

You will need to put in some pictures. If they are _Eucalyptus camaldulensis_, which I am guessing by your common name, they are probably irretrievable. Maybe you should consider planting some succession trees now and managing these ones for a short while before you remove them.

Damn hacks topping Euc's  To answer your question, almost everyone on here will have faced this before. We're sick of seeing it.


----------



## jomoco (Jan 23, 2010)

If you're not going to remove them, the only responsible course of treatment is to top them again at a relatively uniform heigth of 10-12 feet above the old topping cuts.

Make it perfectly clear in the contract that followup pruning within 3-5 years is mandatory to avoid a hazardous tree situation from developing again as a result of topping.

I believe the proper terminology for the third topping is tertiary growth crown restoration, rather than the second topping that I call secondary growth crown restoration.

And topping is not the same as pollarding, which is an ancient fine art with a very precise set of rules and timelines.

Tertiary growth eucs are very common in California and elsewhere.

Once a tree's been topped the only responsible course of treatment is to either remove it or top it again within a varying timeline dependent on species. 

Atleast that's my opinion anyway.

jomoco


----------



## outofmytree (Jan 25, 2010)

jomoco said:


> If you're not going to remove them, the only responsible course of treatment is to top them again at a relatively uniform heigth of 10-12 feet above the old topping cuts.
> 
> Make it perfectly clear in the contract that followup pruning within 3-5 years is mandatory to avoid a hazardous tree situation from developing again as a result of topping.
> 
> ...



In my most diplomatic tone I must humbly say. NO ####ING WAY.

I have succesfully restored the canopy on a number of _E.camaldulensis_ and it definately was not done this way! I wish my comp had not crashed so I could show you a sweet pruning job done less than 12 months ago that I still send new clients to look at so they can see it is possible.

Firstly it is fair to say some trees will be easier to correct than others. That said, isolating stronger leaders is not a difficult task. Sound each connection with a mallet. The bad ones sound "hollow" and sometimes "flat". Reduce the number of leaders per tree by one third. Despite that this is contrary to conventional 15-25% for mature trees remember that this is the equivalent of CPR for the tree. Discuss the prospect of DYNAMIC cabling for these trees if it is within the clients budget. If it is not, then walk them through the more cost effective method of removing the worst trees and replanting whilst restoring the stronger specimens.

Most important point here IMO is that topping whether for the first, second or twenty second time IS NOT a tool that belongs in the 21st century arborists bag of tricks.

Whatever you do, please, please, please *DO NOT* top an E.camaldulensis above an existing obvious "topping point" The lesser of two evils is always to reduce the tree to its previous cut. Not pollarding in the correct sense of the word but 1000 times better then producing epicormic growth on top of epicormic growth and of course if it is done again... Epo on epo on epo......


----------



## MattB (Jan 25, 2010)

Hey folks. Here are a selection of pictures to show you what I'm dealing with. 

Feedback is appreciated.

After going back and studying the trees more it looks like these have been topped back on multiple occasions. Note the exposed wood that never healed over and the pulled bark from branches breaking away.


----------



## VL07 (Jan 25, 2010)

I've recovered three topped trees over the past 9 years. Purchase Ed Gilman's, An illustrated guide to pruning. The book will show you how it's done. 

It worked on all three topped tree, but only one was a mature tree, (Ficus).


----------



## VL07 (Jan 25, 2010)

One last word, the Ficus toke seven years. The client paid about 600.00 every year, but they are very happy with the results. You can't have a home in Florida with out a Ficus sp...right?


----------



## MattB (Jan 25, 2010)

VL07,
I just ordered a copy of Ed Gilman's book. Hopefully the 1st edition will have the same information. It was $9.99 used instead of $60+ for a used copy of the most recent edition.


----------



## Bermie (Jan 25, 2010)

VL07 said:


> One last word, the Ficus toke seven years. The client paid about 600.00 every year, but they are very happy with the results. You can't have a home in Florida with out a Ficus sp...right?



I bet that was an icky mess!!! How large was it overall that it took seven years?

Well done to you for getting them onto an annual renovation programme, your 'sell' must have been right on, I get people who can't understand why it can't all be done right now!


----------



## EdenT (Jan 25, 2010)

MattB said:


> Hey folks. Here are a selection of pictures to show you what I'm dealing with.
> 
> Feedback is appreciated.
> 
> After going back and studying the trees more it looks like these have been topped back on multiple occasions. Note the exposed wood that never healed over and the pulled bark from branches breaking away.



Oh dear! I would say you have your work cut out for you on this one. My personal feeling is with the house right there underneath it, I would remove it and plant something else - a little further from the house. JMHO. Others like OOMT might be able to come up with a plan for you, but I have had one of these suckers break out on me before, so I guess I'm just chicken. Good luck.


----------



## jefflovstrom (Jan 25, 2010)

Those trees are trash. Dont look like red gum. I would remove them.
Jeff


----------



## treeseer (Jan 25, 2010)

I agree with oomt about tapping to assess hollows, but I also agree with jomoco about reducing. Most eucs do have nodes where there are buds visible. Those are points to cut back to, and it can be proper; read Shigo, read ANSI. Growth from these is endocomic, not epi, or epo...

Not sure gilman's first edition is the same, but as he said to the crowd last friday, the starting point with restoration is to remove 1/3 of the sprouts (the hollow and included ones, for instance), reduce 1/3 and retain 1/3. The goal is to spread out the new foliage, and thus the wind load.


----------



## outofmytree (Jan 25, 2010)

Based on those few photographs Matt I would have to say the outlook for those trees is not good.

Tree ID can be tricky but IMO it is the first and most important thing to do for your client. The difference between the way two "similar" species respond to pruning can be profound. There are 894 recognised Eucalypt species if you include Angophora and Corymbia. That 1st photograph shows bark somewhat similar to _Corymbia calophylla _but very unlike _Eucalyptus camaldulensis_. If you find a mature "nut" and several leaves and take a photograph of both on a sheet of white paper with a ruler in the view I will help you put a name to the tree.




> I agree with oomt about tapping to assess hollows, but I also agree with jomoco about reducing. Most eucs do have nodes where there are buds visible. Those are points to cut back to, and it can be proper; read Shigo, read ANSI. Growth from these is endocomic, not epi, or epo...





> If you're not going to remove them, the only responsible course of treatment is to top them again at a relatively uniform heigth of 10-12 feet above the old topping cuts.



Guy is being graceful but there is a world of difference between reducing to nodes and retopping at a uniform length as Jomoco said above. It is the indiscriminate cutting of branches based on length alone that destroys these trees. Select the strongest unions (by tapping if you will) and remove the rest. My personal benchmark, used in my home town, is remove 1/3 of the branches above the lowest topping point. Pay particular attention to the direction of prevailing wind. The tree needs more branches on the windward than leeward sides as branches are stronger when pushed up and in than down and out.

This break occurred toward the north east and in Perth the prevailing winds is from...you guessed, it the south west. Note the typical dark stain of rot below the old topping cut and the total lack of connection other than to the side of the cut.







By the way this tree is _E.camaldulensis_ with its typical powdery bark and darker patches. Bark is a very misleading means of tree ID however so that seed + leaf + scale photo is really going to help.


Is it possible to take more photographs of whole trees with a good camera or would you be open to providing the google earth location? Remember your competitors can also see this site though!


----------



## jomoco (Jan 25, 2010)

Your position is silly OOMT, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

You can tap out the star bangled banner with your mallet all day long my friend, but it still won't magically change secondary growth back into strongly attached primary growth, that's why topping trees is a no no junior.

The reality is it happens, and once it happens, it will have to keep happening in order to maintain any semblance of structural integrity short of removing it.

But by all means, spread your miracle treatment to newbies so their reputations get shreaded in the next storm, along with their clients homes

How long you been in this biz again?

jomoco


----------



## outofmytree (Jan 25, 2010)

jomoco said:


> Your position is silly OOMT, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
> 
> You can tap out the star bangled banner with your mallet all day long my friend, but it still won't magically change secondary growth back into strongly attached primary growth, that's why topping trees is a no no junior.
> 
> ...



LOL.

Jomoco once again, in attacking me rather than my reasoning, you show that your own top, top and retop idea has no scientific or economic value. As for this little gem



> But by all means, spread your miracle treatment to newbies so their reputations get shreaded in the next storm, along with their clients homes



it just goes to show how little attention you pay to other peoples posts.

Here is a snippet from the OP.



> I have observed that many branches have broken away from the edges of the previous cuts and I suspect that the larger tops are just as likely to have poor connections.



Without any work done these trees are already shedding branches. So you suggest making topping cuts 12 feet above the existing ones. Let me explain the sheer stupidity of that comment to the readers. Once you make an internodal cut on a Euc it will activate multiple nodes close to the cut. Instead of 1 branch you will now have 3,4,5,6 or more. As this growth is emergency growth to replace much needed food factories (leaves) it will go upwards very fast and produce 2 or even 3 times as many leaves as was on the original branch. So now you have a branch that is longer, heavier and has far greater wind resistance than ever before. No surprise that, like the photograph I showed earlier, they snap off at the union.



> How long you been in this biz again?



Have you ever noticed how people with much practise at doing the same thing wrong over and over again call it experience?

If you are reading this and don't know which way to turn I suggest you go to an unbiased source. Try any of Alex Shigo's books but in particular I suggest A New Tree Biology (heavy reading but great for detailed knowledge) or Modern Arboriculture. You may also read An illustrated guide to pruning by Edward Gilman. Both these authors are highly regarded by arborists around the world and both of them slam topping for what it is. Bad tree pruning.

Matt if the client is prepared to pay for a long term program rather than a quick fix then may I suggest a mix of the following.

Remove trees which are dangerous or simply not cost effective to save.

Plant more than you remove choosing a species that is appropriate for the conditions.

Reduce existing trees as noted above.

Installation of non-intrusive dynamic cabling for high risk trees such as Yale brace or Cobra.

Mulch rings as wide as can be fitted in to the landscaping around each tree.

Plastic gutter guard for the buildings. Way cheaper than pruning trees to keep leaves out of the gutters!

I do not live in your part of the world. I live in Australia where more than 800 of the 894 Eucalypt species come from. I work with Eucs 3 days out of 5. In perth alone there are upwards of 1 million publicly owned Eucalypts in public parks, streets, verges, schools, hospitals and of course back yards. I am not the be all and end all of Eucalypt care. Far from it. But what I know I am 100% certain of and back up my arguments with facts you can check for yourself.

Sorry for the rant but I simply cannot abide bad practise being passed off as good ESPECIALLY by someone who should know better.


----------



## MattB (Jan 25, 2010)

Let me be sure that I understand...I should take off one 1/3 of the stems (all the way back to the trunk with a proper finishing cut), keep 1/3 of them as they are and then "reduce" 1/3 more? 

How would I go about reducing a stem that has nothing to cut back too other than to top it again? 

What about in the case of all of the stems having poor attachments and leaning over the buildings? I can probably answer that myself...full removal. hmmmmmmm 




treeseer said:


> I agree with oomt about tapping to assess hollows, but I also agree with jomoco about reducing. Most eucs do have nodes where there are buds visible. Those are points to cut back to, and it can be proper; read Shigo, read ANSI. Growth from these is endocomic, not epi, or epo...
> 
> Not sure gilman's first edition is the same, but as he said to the crowd last friday, the starting point with restoration is to remove 1/3 of the sprouts (the hollow and included ones, for instance), reduce 1/3 and retain 1/3. The goal is to spread out the new foliage, and thus the wind load.



I've added a few more pictures that show how truly mangled these trees are plus an example of a broken out branch. These extra pictures might help with an ID. 

Outofmytree, I will have to go back to the jobsite again as I need to inspect not only these 40 eucs but also 75 Bull Pine and 50 pear. I will try to get some good photos of the foliage for you.


----------



## outofmytree (Jan 26, 2010)

MattB said:


> Let me be sure that I understand...I should take off one 1/3 of the stems (all the way back to the trunk with a proper finishing cut), keep 1/3 of them as they are and then "reduce" 1/3 more?
> 
> How would I go about reducing a stem that has nothing to cut back too other than to top it again?
> 
> ...



Photo 0845 looks much more like Eucalyptus gomphocephala (Tuart Gum) but those leaf/fruit pictrues will really help. If anything Tuarts are worse than River red gums for epicormic failure. They grow larger, have denser wood and greater foliage density. It really helps to know which tree it is.


----------



## Ekka (Jan 26, 2010)

I would avoid Guy's Meilleur Folie cut (node pruning ) like the plague, it's a wolf in sheeps clothing and he's peddling it harder than Andy Schleck in the Tour De France.

Here in the city of Mildura check it out what the local govt did when faced with a similar but larger problem.






It's called being between a rock and a hard place, high value targets, high occupancy rates, large leaders with little opportunity of target cuts. 

This picture will give you an idea of the sizes we're looking at.


----------



## Gumnuts (Jan 26, 2010)

jefflovstrom said:


> Those trees are trash. Dont look like red gum. I would remove them.
> Jeff



+1 / they're not.......I heard ya LOL


----------



## outofmytree (Jan 26, 2010)

Well at least the good folk of Mildura can now see the Volkswagon dealership.


----------



## treeseer (Jan 26, 2010)

outofmytree said:


> Well at least the good folk of Mildura can now see the Volkswagon dealership.


And done often enough, you may get enough callusing to make it sustainable? I'm no euc man, but they are not that different from silver maples. there's More than one way to handle a topped tree.

"How would I go about reducing a stem that has nothing to cut back too other than to top it again?"

Matt, cutting to buds is not topping. It is heading, which may or may not be proper depending on the tree, read ANSI, Shigo, Gilman...

"What about in the case of all of the stems having poor attachments and leaning over the buildings? I can probably answer that myself...full removal. "

What if by removing the stem you create more decay in the main trunk and increase long-term hazard? Reduction may be safer than removal, and it conserves assets.

oomt, in your last pic, I see little stain going down. Not that rotted,just too heavy on the ends. The sprouts were not reduced, perhaps due in part to all this thou-shalt-not-leave-a-stub preaching, which has no Good Book to back it up, and far too many pulpits and minor deacons peddling lukewarm brimstone and calling it Revelation. :welcome:


----------



## Ekka (Jan 26, 2010)

treeseer said:


> The sprouts were not reduced, perhaps due in part to all this thou-shalt-not-leave-a-stub preaching



Now what is the logic here?

That reducing the sprouts means leaving them as stubs too rather than cutting to target? 

Not with the logic stream here.:monkey:


----------



## jefflovstrom (Jan 26, 2010)

This has gone on a long time, those trees are crap and should be removed! It is a complex of units that house people and if no funds ( budget) allow it , cut it back to the old cuts and leave a big ugly stump in the ground and wait for a call in a couple of years to do the same old thing over.opcorn:
Jeff


----------



## jomoco (Jan 26, 2010)

Ekka said:


> Now what is the logic here?
> 
> That reducing the sprouts means leaving them as stubs too rather than cutting to target?
> 
> Not with the logic stream here.:monkey:



The logic is that secondary growth is wealkly attached and must be reduced within a certain amount of time or else.

It is illogical to assume otherwise as the results are self evident in the pics.

Are you saying that a euc can be topped once at maturity, and then safely maintained without topping it again at some point?

I admit to being somewhat shocked, if you are indeed saying that Ekka.

jomoco


----------



## jefflovstrom (Jan 26, 2010)

:monkey::monkey:
Maybe they worship eucs there. I don't get it! This is a rental property or HOA that is trying to use their budget as best they can- they should know that this should be included or they can pay later.opcorn:
Jeff


----------



## MattB (Jan 27, 2010)

jefflovstrom said:


> This has gone on a long time, those trees are crap and should be removed! It is a complex of units that house people and if no funds ( budget) allow it , cut it back to the old cuts and leave a big ugly stump in the ground and wait for a call in a couple of years to do the same old thing over.opcorn:
> Jeff



Tomorrow I will take some time to climb and inspect the canopy and I have a feeling I will make the recommendation to for at least a few of the trees to do just that. But I don't think this thread has gone on long enough because I feel like I am still benefiting from other peoples experience and advice. 

It is not such a simple issue. I know what the budget is for the project and pruning 44 redwood, 72 bull pine, about 50 fruit trees is a big task already. If I add in permits, removal and replacement of 32 eucs instead of just topping them again I go way over budget and I don't get the job. If I top them again I am compromising my integrity and perpetuating a hazardous situation. 

Thank you everyone for your comments.


----------



## Boa07 (Jan 27, 2010)

Hello MattB,

From my perspective you have had some very good advice from a number of posters, you have got yourself Ed Gilmans book and if you very carefully read the chapter on restorative pruning damaged trees you will have some of the very best advice on the topic at hand.

My 2cents....Please don't top (cutting internodally) these trees again, for all the reasons that have been well presented to you thus far. If the owners really want to retain the trees then there certainly are well established pruning methods to try and manage the current epicormic regrowth.

Relative strengths within branch unions is a topic that is just slightly more complex than any blanket statement can convey. Epicormic regrowth can become the scaffold framework for a healthy stable tree canopy...now whether the trees in your pictures are such candidates (for want of a better word) would really only be possible to assess on site and critically during your climbing inspection.

Trees do get smashed by storms, they do get trashed by poor cutting...sometimes (I would argue often) those tree can be managed over a long period to grow a canopy that has some resemblance of what the undamaged canopy might have looked like.

More often than not a combination of misunderstanding tree biology and the desire to get the cheapest job by the tree owner leads to what I would consider to be a poor choice in management options.

One last point MattB, whilst it might seem that there is strong and adamant disagreement in the written opinions, I would strongly suggest that if you had us on site standing next you looking at and touching those trees you would have much more consensus.

Regards

Sean


----------



## Gumnuts (Jan 27, 2010)

MattB said:


> These extra pictures might help with an ID.



50 cents on Red Box


----------



## treeseer (Jan 27, 2010)

Boa07 said:


> If the owners really want to retain the trees then there certainly are well established pruning methods to try and manage the current epicormic regrowth.
> 
> Relative strengths within branch unions is a topic that is just slightly more complex than any blanket statement can convey. Epicormic regrowth can become the scaffold framework for a healthy stable tree canopy....those tree can be managed over a long period to grow a canopy that has some resemblance of what the undamaged canopy might have looked like.
> 
> More often than not a combination of misunderstanding tree biology ... leads to what I would consider to be a poor choice in management options. ...



:agree2:

Cutting back selectively to buds is target pruning, not topping. ANSI, Shigo, Gilman...We are not limited to either cutting back to the same place or cutting the tree down or losing our professional integrity. Retain some branches, reduce some, remove some. Lots of decisions, but the tree will indicate what to do if you study it with open eyes.


----------



## Bermie (Jan 27, 2010)

I get to do a few topping renovations every year....SOP is to remove the regrowth that is obviously weak or badly attached, cut off any irredemable stubs and nasty stuff, remaining sprouts are reduced or directional pruned if there is sufficient branching, and some of the long skinny sprouts with no developed branches 1 - 2" thick, are cut back...to a node! 
Leaving long whippy sprouts intact is asking for them to tear off in the next wind...
during the revisit in a year or two, those sprouts have either developed nice side shoots and can be further worked, or have died...the ones that die are small enough not to have caused a problem, can be cut off or snapped off and the wound usually closes over fairly quickly...
Poinciana, Casuarina, Albizzia, Persea, Tabebuia, Cocoloba...all species this is done on.


----------



## Ekka (Jan 27, 2010)

jomoco said:


> The logic is that secondary growth is wealkly attached and must be reduced within a certain amount of time or else.
> 
> It is illogical to assume otherwise as the results are self evident in the pics.
> 
> ...



Never said that and not saying that, read my post in it's entirety again.


----------



## jomoco (Jan 27, 2010)

Ekka said:


> Never said that and not saying that, read my post in it's entirety again.



Well that's a relief!

Yu know Ekka, I've often thought that radial ring cabling could be a valuable remedial means of partially restoring structural integrity to topped trees, particularly eucs.

I apologise for misunderstanding your post mate.

jomoco


----------



## Ekka (Jan 27, 2010)

What one writes and what can really be achieved are two different things.

On trees like below a reduction is pretty much impossible if 50% were requested. As you can see there's little branching to reduce to. You have a chance out on the tips though.

I have also previously written about reduction pruning eucs where the branch you drop down to is as long and poorly tapered as the branch you are removing. Thinning is an option however most trees will regrow the volume cut in around 3 to 5 years.

If the attitude of the tree owner is, "well if it dies then I'll remove it, at least we get a chance with repruning" then a retopping back to pseudo pollard heads is on. It's fast and renders the tree immediately stable. Depending on growth rates they may repeat this every 2 years or so.

I have had local councils request coppiced stumps and stumps be left up to regenerate in low target areas where trees are deemed structurally unsound. Of course in that application it's a cut and forget where as in high target environments it has to be managed. The thing is if it's done at an accessable point the maintenance of a retopping (pseudo pollarding) is easier to maintian and in reach of home-owners and gardeners and EWP's and climbers are not required.

Take a close look at the picture below. Just think, remove 1/3 of the stems means more exposure to the remaining, reduce 1/3 of the stems means a lop job for those stems and leave 1/3 to cop the brunt nature. Hmmmm, I don't agree with that. Then weigh up the costs of cabling, thinning, slight reduction pruning on a regular basis with risk still there (risk higher than a retopping). If the attitude is, "we'll remove any that die" you have a viable management plan, some will disagree, some will rant and rave .... but ultimately it's the tree owners decision.

For the record we are discussing structurally defective trees, if you have a decent tree, hasn't been storm damaged or topped then don't go doing this sort of rubbish.

The other thing no-one has mentioned is using a growth retardant hormone to slow the trees down, there's more treatments than a chainsaw.


----------



## treeslayer (Jan 27, 2010)

opcorn:opcorn:opcorn:opcorn:


----------



## treeseer (Jan 27, 2010)

Bermie said:


> I get to do a few topping renovations every year....SOP is to remove the regrowth that is obviously weak or badly attached, cut off any irredemable stubs and nasty stuff, remaining sprouts are reduced or directional pruned if there is sufficient branching, and some of the long skinny sprouts with no developed branches 1 - 2" thick, are cut back...to a node!
> Leaving long whippy sprouts intact is asking for them to tear off in the next wind...
> during the revisit in a year or two, those sprouts have either developed nice side shoots and can be further worked, or have died...the ones that die are small enough not to have caused a problem, can be cut off or snapped off and the wound usually closes over fairly quickly...
> Poinciana, Casuarina, Albizzia, Persea, Tabebuia, Cocoloba...all species this is done on.



Bermie, that sounds a lot like Gilman's protocol; thanks for letting us know that it works on so many species.

Paclobutrazol does work on eucalypts, causing many more buds to form. More buds = more natural targets to prune to.


----------



## outofmytree (Jan 28, 2010)

Despite tipping my hat to access line clearance I cannot support topping trees just because that is what was done previously. With all the alternatives posted just in this thread there is a solution to even those poor abused mongrels in Mildura. Which is not to say we don't have our own chainsaw victims over here either!


http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=james+street+south+guildford+WA&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=54.23735,78.837891&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=James+St,+Guildford+Western+Australia+6055&t=h&layer=c&cbll=-31.899289,115.966628&panoid=s8IadpsGIhlzpPi1yf_osw&cbp=13,317.69,,0,-17.77&ll=-31.89929,115.966503&spn=0,359.998797&z=20


Is is odd to me that dynamic cabling has such a low profile in Australia where it could, in the case of the trees pictured, have such a profound impact. Tragically if you want to see professional cabling done here you have to go to Kings Park Botanical Graden cos there is 3/5 of 5/8 of #### all done elsewhere.


----------



## jomoco (Jan 28, 2010)

outofmytree said:


> Despite tipping my hat to access line clearance I cannot support topping trees just because that is what was done previously. With all the alternatives posted just in this thread there is a solution to even those poor abused mongrels in Mildura. Which is not to say we don't have our own chainsaw victims over here either!
> 
> 
> http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=james+street+south+guildford+WA&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=54.23735,78.837891&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=James+St,+Guildford+Western+Australia+6055&t=h&layer=c&cbll=-31.899289,115.966628&panoid=s8IadpsGIhlzpPi1yf_osw&cbp=13,317.69,,0,-17.77&ll=-31.89929,115.966503&spn=0,359.998797&z=20
> ...



Probably because dynamic cabling like COBRA sucks for any application, except perhaps heavily laden fruit trees.

jomoco


----------



## Boa07 (Jan 28, 2010)

outofmytree said:


> Despite tipping my hat to access line clearance I cannot support topping trees just because that is what was done previously. With all the alternatives posted just in this thread there is a solution to even those poor abused mongrels in Mildura. Which is not to say we don't have our own chainsaw victims over here either!
> 
> 
> Is is odd to me that dynamic cabling has such a low profile in Australia where it could, in the case of the trees pictured, have such a profound impact. Tragically if you want to see professional cabling done here you have to go to Kings Park Botanical Graden cos there is 3/5 of 5/8 of #### all done elsewhere.



I suspect one of the main reasons has a great deal to with how many who lay claim to being Arborists make their income from the operation of chainsaws and chippers, certainly all the LGA's I have any contact with have no PHC units but they have a great many tree crews, and some beautiful looking chippers.

In my universe dynamic cabling has a great many useful applications and is no more a universal panacea than any other mangement option, but I am sadly confident that the majority will continue to search for a universal fix rather than to have to use our brains to provide solutions to specific tree issues.


----------



## treeseer (Jan 28, 2010)

Boa07 said:


> ...the majority will continue to search for a universal fix rather than to have to use our brains to provide solutions to specific tree issues.


Geez, that takes all the fun out of it!


----------



## jomoco (Jan 28, 2010)

Boa07 said:


> In my universe dynamic cabling has a great many useful applications and is no more a universal panacea than any other mangement option, but I am sadly confident that the majority will continue to search for a universal fix rather than to have to use our brains to provide solutions to specific tree issues.




List a few of these useful applications for dynamic cabling mates.

jomoco


----------



## Ekka (Jan 29, 2010)

Where there is no evidence of failure but a "defect or weakness" identified that if it failed could cause harm/ damage to targets. The dynamic cable will allow natural movement which we all know allows the tree to grow reaction wood where needed. A static would deny the tree natural movement.

If the section fails it will be held up and not impact targets.

Often some pruning is done too.

These days there's a choice of 5% or 20% stretch in a system, a variety of rope strengths, non invasive and relatively easy to fit compared to steel systems. Seldom is there issues of critters eating the rope.

Guy M has always been an advocate of offering *MANAGEMENT OPTIONS*, if the client is presented with all options and decides (like Mildura) on a re-topping then perhaps management options need to be scrubbed and replaced with *Recommendation*, albeit they can get other recommendations too and there's nothing new about arborists arguing. :monkey:

Those trees in Mildura are very different to say topped poincianas. The size and weight of those limbs is no comparison. Mature tree height has to be considered, we all know that the tree grows faster, taller, poorly formed and rarely branching leaders (as seen). Sure a few years ago when those leaders were say 4m tall not 20m they could have reduced them or even hedge trimmed them into fancy Disneyland shapes, but those days have passed for those trees. The situation had to be dealth with.


----------



## jomoco (Jan 29, 2010)

Sorry guys, but it won't wash. The only time cabling is either called for or justifiable, is to isolate a defect in the tree permanently.

All you jokers selling dynamic cabling to your customers are going to get bit in the azz, eventually.

It's kinda funny to me that so many arborists fall for this dynamic strangling crap being sold to unwary customers.

Show me a cambium on any tree anywhere that can withstand the rated linear tensile strength of even a 1/4 inch EHS 7 strand galvinized steel cable without being crushed into a pulp.

But let's suppose one of these dynamic cobra synthetic ropes becomes loaded under 2K lbs of linear pull, taught as hell, and another leader/branch somewhere in the tree fails and falls across it, that contact combined with the wind will produce friction against that taught soft synthetic rope, and given time, perhaps as little as one season, saw it in half, if a squirrel doesn't do it first!

Much like the rigguy wirestops, the cobra cabling system is a very poorly thought out product, that far too many arborists are adopting at their own peril.

The idea that lessening pressure on a leader/branch can somehow make it stronger is a direct contradiction of the fundamentals of how tension and compression wood is formed/generated in trees.

I met a little old lady who apparently understands how trees get stronger better than you cobra users. She had a nice medium citriodora euc on her hilltop property, that I was removing beetle kill pines over her house at. During lunch I walked around to her backyard to admire her lemon euc, but stopped in my tracks when I saw that this wise old lady had actually tied bowling balls suspended on springs to the big lower laterals on her eucs, and that each time the wind blew the bowling balls did a little dance as they bounced a little hanging from those laterals!

I studied what she'd done for a bit, before knocking on her door and confirming my suspicion that she had hung the bowling balls on springs to actually strengthen the long laterals of that tree, which was her favorite tree.

So even some little old ladies appear to understand tree biology/mechanics better than you cobra boys!

jomoco


----------



## Boa07 (Jan 29, 2010)

We are so lucky to have experts of the absolute to share their small nuggets of wisdom with us lesser mortals.

How ridiculous of anyone to even consider that a dynamic cabling system could aid in the retention of specific limbs (and their attached live canopy) within the strucutre of an assessed tree. 

Heaven knows Europe is strewn with trussed up trees strangled by constricting masses of synthetic cabling like some obscene Gordian knot convention.....

How I dream of the absolute clarity of exposition "Thou shalt only install static cabling and bracing systems"...sadly it seems I shall be forever exiled from the monochrome universe trapped in the agony of my coloured purgatory world, where options are not constrained by the mind of the holy one......


----------



## Ekka (Jan 29, 2010)

jomoco said:


> All you jokers selling dynamic cabling to your customers are going to get bit in the azz, eventually.
> 
> It's kinda funny to me that so many arborists fall for this dynamic strangling crap being sold to unwary customers.



Beneath this euc is a skate park kids play in, this shot was taken at Nerang Gold Coast, a Gold Coast City Council Park.

Do you think they should replace it with steel or pull it down? :monkey:

Such open American ISA minds I see full of expert one-eyed opinions.


----------



## treevet (Jan 29, 2010)

Ekka said:


> Beneath this euc is a skate park kids play in, this shot was taken at Nerang Gold Coast, a Gold Coast City Council Park.
> 
> Do you think they should replace it with steel or pull it down? :monkey:
> 
> Such open American ISA minds I see full of expert one-eyed opinions.



That picture is one of the silliest excuses for "treatment" I have ever witnessed. A few words come to mind...false sense of security (and make pretend you are coughing while you say this.....rrrrrippppofffff). All the little kiddies can play under this tree with no worries now? Mommy and Daddy's precious little gems are safe and sound (ha).

Sort of supporting perceived structural flaws around here would end you up in front of the judge with a huge liable case eventually. Dynamic cabling is a scam. Adding reaction wood? Adding weight and leverage to exacerbate the
defect.

You still stuck on that 44 credits? Been a couple of years now hasn't it? If you could pass the ISA test then you would be attaining credits all the time lol. Why don't you put up 144 credits? Whose gonna know the dif?


----------



## Ekka (Jan 29, 2010)

And as usual Treevet has to go the person, add his venom and taint, no wonder you have a lot in common with OOMT! :deadhorse:

Thank lord tree care goes beyond the USA borders and ISA. :hmm3grin2orange:

You actually believe or perceive this equation ....

1 ISA CEU = 1 AQF unit ...... if you believe that or perceive that then you are way wrong. 

It's actually *1 ISA Topic = 1 AQF unit* .... CEU's are those little handouts for rocking up to a show or reading one of Len Phillips articles and getting some multiple choice questions right. 

But then again, many worship false Gods.





Living in threat of litigation is sound tree management eh. Now show me some cases where the "cabler" has lost a court case. Be specific.


----------



## treevet (Jan 29, 2010)

What do I have in common with OOMT??? Well maybe we have both fallen out of favor with the Ruler Of Tree World (achtung). You should make a little Ekka figure to keep your ISA one company. I am surprised that cartoon hasn't grown gray hair it is so old (and over used and worn out and trite). 

I was recently on a thread that you were on and I looked around and 5 out of the 7 people on the thread had been banned from your forum....and I wasn't even one of them. No question were I to return that number would increase one fold and the only one unbanned would be Heir Ekka lol.

Living with the threat of potential litigation IS sound business management IMO and because of that I have never had to suffer the pains involved with a court case ever in 40 years.


----------



## Boa07 (Jan 29, 2010)

(Second attempt at posting a long reply…the software is annoying logging me out and loosing the post!)

Since hardly anyone will know why this system was installed into this tree (by me) I will explain a little.

The tree is a veteran Eucalyptus tereticornis, about 4m from the sealed entrance road to a skate park and dog walking area near the little town of Nerang SE Qld.

Council decided they were going to extend the skate park facilities more concrete forms for people to do their thing.

The y planned to have the concrete forms some 2m off the tree on the opposite side to the road. Fortunately the company I work for became involved and we eventually persuaded council to alter things slightly. (Believe me this is not easy to do as any who have worked with councils will attest)

During the lead in to the construction the tree lost a 350mm limb, the limb had extensive decay through the tension wood from a past injury (amongst other factors) which had been hidden by an epiphyte and large volume of leaf debris.

Not surprisingly there was a lot of pressure to dramatically reduce the tree on the side of the skate park. Now this is a 150yr+ old Euc with reduced vigor about to be exposed to construction impacts. The last thing it needed or could sustain would be the reduction in photosynthetic capacity.

Together with another Arb firm we removed all the mistletoe and large diameter deadwood from the area above the proposed new skate ramps. The tree was closely inspected from branch tips back to main stems, all unions looked at.
This tree has been lopped back at least once in the last 50yrs, and although occluded and the regrowth wrapped in many years of wood growth the branch architecture reflects that cutting history. 

Hollowing in the limbs and stems of Eucs (and all trees) is a perfectly normal process that reflects the tree’s age and its past encounters with external forces (man made and natural). This tree has numerous hollows in major limbs.

Many of you that do install static cabling would (I am sure) have looked at this tree if asked to quote to install bracing and laughed saying there was absolutely no need. You’d be right IMO, however intervention was what was demanded by the tree owner (council).

The system of fall arrest was installed in the branches and limbs above the new park, the synthetic ropes will snare branches that might fail and otherwise impact the structure below. We have had some wild winds and weather since the system was installed and no branches have yet failed (we did not expect they would nothing to do with the presence of the ropes btw) doubtless we will get a storm bad enough or a freak wind that will break parts of this tree at some time and then the system will have to be replaced.

This system (and therefore the tree) is inspected annually and after any major storms, the health and structure of the tree is monitored which would not have happened otherwise…these are good outcomes IMO.

Cabling of any kind is just a tool an option amongst many that should be considered when it comes to individual trees. Each of you would have had other ideas other solutions to this particular problem. To rule out dynamic cabling by pontificating on high is just plain silly.

I know that the legal environment in the USA is different to ours and that is something that holds your attention as business operators, I have no experience of your legal system so cannot make meaningful comment about its specifics.

There are some pictures of the tree for context amongst these in this album;
http://picasaweb.google.com/freeman.sd/TerraARK# it also contains pics of my final contract climbing job, same tree.

Sean


----------



## Ekka (Jan 29, 2010)

treevet said:


> What do I have in common with OOMT??? Well maybe we have both fallen out of favor with the Ruler Of Tree World (achtung). You should make a little Ekka figure to keep your ISA one company. I am surprised that cartoon hasn't grown gray hair it is so old (and over used and worn out and trite).
> 
> I was recently on a thread that you were on and I looked around and 5 out of the 7 people on the thread had been banned from your forum....and I wasn't even one of them. No question were I to return that number would increase one fold and the only one unbanned would be Heir Ekka lol.



You'll find they all have the same traits ... poor arguments and get personal with derogatory name calling and generally ignorant to the topic with a one eyed perspective, hence they fit here. 

People have trouble with the going hard on the topic and not the people, clearly evident in your posts.

But we have a superior forum without the name calling argumentative trouble makers that serves the wider community well, so a few rotten apples get chucked out, such is life, don't be rotten.


----------



## Ekka (Jan 29, 2010)

Boa07 said:


> (Second attempt at posting a long reply…the software is annoying logging me out and loosing the post!)
> 
> Since hardly anyone will know why this system was installed into this tree (by me) I will explain a little.
> 
> ...



Great post Sean, and thanks for telling people it was your job .... I just happen to get around a lot and observe trees, see things others would walk past.

I like options and the 1 size fits all mentality is a trap to avoid.

It is also clearly evident from some of the posts that the holistic approach is not taken, you did detailed inspections. 

Check out the canopy of this beauty I recently worked on. It took 5 EWP set ups and almost 9 hours to just deadwood it. We had 3 nests in the tree and 3 possums living in hollows.


----------



## Boa07 (Jan 29, 2010)

That is a very beautiful looking tree no question


----------



## treevet (Jan 29, 2010)

Boa07 said:


> (Second attempt at posting a long reply…the software is annoying logging me out and loosing the post!)
> 
> Since hardly anyone will know why this system was installed into this tree (by me) I will explain a little.
> 
> ...



While I am not an advocate for elastic support systems, I do understand working under the restraints you are faced with. I also understand the need to keep to the bare minimum the amount of live tissue removed from an old veteran tree. 

What I do not understand is the need to put a high level target and/or expand it after that under a veteran tree. With that in mind to be able to capture a failed limb and avert a disaster makes sense with what you have done Sean. I have also put in capture mechanisms by just using a half inch line from the stem to a defected limb and running bolen it on both ends so as not to cause restriction on either end but if it was to fail it would hold the bulk of it up in the air until I could go up and bring it safely down.


----------



## treeseer (Jan 30, 2010)

Your final contract climbing job? Sad statement. Thanks for telling the tale; it pulled the thread above the venom and taint and ad hominem personal stuff.

:rockn:


----------



## Ekka (Jan 30, 2010)

treeseer said:


> Your final contract climbing job? Sad statement. Thanks for telling the tale; it pulled the thread above the venom and taint and ad hominem personal stuff.
> 
> :rockn:



Through intervention of certain posters backed with sound reasoning and evidence pulled the thread into a real world perspective that was not considered prior. 

All options to be considered, actions to be selected from list of options, often there is no right or wrong .... just choices, which will rarely please everybody however the intention is to please the client and satisfy the circumstances as best it can. Some like to bully their way around with one eyed rhetoric from an inventory which is a stubby short of a 6 pack.


----------



## Boa07 (Jan 30, 2010)

> Your final contract climbing job? Sad statement



I still do climbing inspections, though truth be told they are slow and laborious . No derail intended, decades of rugby (I regret nothing!!!!) and a few too many poor descisions on rocks and in trees made it impossible for me to earn through climbing. Its all good


----------



## outofmytree (Jan 30, 2010)

There are some nice photo's in that list Sean, thanks for linking them.



> The only time cabling is either called for or justifiable, is to isolate a defect in the tree permanently.



So what would you suggest was the correct option for the Euc in Seans pictures? What other method/s will ensure the tree retains the maximum photosynthetic area, has the least number of wounds and still keeps the kids playing underneath safe?


----------



## outofmytree (Jan 31, 2010)

Ekka said:


> Through intervention of certain posters backed with sound reasoning and evidence pulled the thread into a real world perspective that was not considered prior.
> 
> All options to be considered, actions to be selected from list of options, often there is no right or wrong .... just choices, which will rarely please everybody however the intention is to please the client and satisfy the circumstances as best it can. Some like to bully their way around with one eyed rhetoric from an inventory which is a stubby short of a 6 pack.



Indeed. Post #16 was a cracker!


----------



## mikewhite85 (Jan 31, 2010)

So I bid to prune some eucs and didn't get the job because I went out of town and couldn't get it done on the HO's time frame. She ended up hiring someone else for about the same price... A couple weeks later, she calls me to give an estimate to build a block wall and I see this:

Makes me want to cry! I didn't say anything about it to her... Apparently, she likes it though.


----------



## treeseer (Jan 31, 2010)

mikewhite85 said:


> ... I see this:
> Makes me want to cry! I didn't say anything about it to her... Apparently, she likes it though.


 On the list of options, that was not the worst. It looks like most of the cuts were aimed at nodes. I would not call it wrong, especially without a "before" pic.

It would be really cool if you could take pics annually from the same spot and document response. Obviously there is a lot of confusion about euc mgt, with all us geniuses here having all this disagreement. 

Regret nothing--right on! It would take a while, with moans and groans, for me to prune a tree like mike showed. But it would still be fun!


----------



## treevet (Jan 31, 2010)

There are some comparisons to be made to the Boa07 tree and mikewhite's trees although at first glance there would appear to be non.

First in both cases there was a perception of danger or threat to a target. It was either by the homeowner/treeowner and/or the arborist.

Secondly there was a treatment agreed on by both parties and action was taken to mitigate or eradicate the problem.

Thirdly in both scenarios there is the question as to whether the treatment purchased and completed rectified the problem, did nothing or was neutral other than the fact that money was collected/paid out, or whether the treatment increased the problem or threat to the target.

With Sean's tree are we going to have children and others now under this tree with confidence the threat has been eliminated? Has the threat been eliminated? Some of the larger sections may be captured if failure occurs but many will not. Will the other limbs that are secured be pulled in directions that they are not "built" to withstand (reaction wood) causing failure rather than preventing it. If metal supports are used like in any cables limbs travel in new directions now that they are cabled but they cannot come off. They cannot move as far, cannot detach if properly installed.

In the case of the TOPPED Eucs....These old trees now have to go into defense taxing a veteran tree as Boa07 put it. Also epicormic sprouts will occur from adventitious buds within the cambial zone from all the wounding. These sprouts have weak unions and as they mature along with the certain decay from the less than perfect defense system we will have a new threat from these 2 trees in short order.

What has been accomplished by these treatments other than a false sense of security and an exchange of payment and service? Maybe a new ownership of liability switching from the tree owner/steward to the arborist who likely did not receive enough payment to take that liability under his or her wing.


----------



## treeseer (Jan 31, 2010)

Dave, I don't think that anyone claimed to eradicate or eliminate the risk. Rectified, perhaps, but only temporarily; trees like all infrastructure need maintenance.

We'll see if your prediction of the tree Mike posted comes true. I think it will do well, if Mike contracts with the owner to restoration pruning in 3-5 years.

"These old trees now have to go into defense taxing a veteran tree as Boa07 put it."

Those are not vets, still young eucs imo

"Also epicormic sprouts will occur from adventitious buds within the cambial zone from all the wounding."

Some newly formed adventitious buds may form and sprout, yes. But so may some preformed dormant buds, which are anchored to the core,so the growth from them is endocormic, much more stable.

"These sprouts have weak unions"

Not the endocormic sprouts. Restoration pruning removes codom sprouts so the unions are stronger, and reduces some, retains some. Check Gilman's book or webpage on this; in his recent talks based on considerable research this is what he's saying.

"and as they mature along with the certain decay from the less than perfect defense system we will have a new threat from these 2 trees in short order."

SOME decay is certain, sure, but there is branch protection anatomy and chemistry at those nodes.  You and I are not euc experts, but what would YOU have done with those trees?


----------



## Boa07 (Jan 31, 2010)

I guess inevitably I'm going to respond to Dave's suggestions.



> there was a perception of danger or threat to a target



Yes there was, on the part of the council (tree owner), however the installation of the fall arrest system was a solution aimed at appeasing the concerns of council (concerns I did not share based on the tree risk assessment) whilst critically avoiding the kind of cutting shown in mikewhite's picture.

It is my continual experience that risk of significant harm from the failure of trees or their parts is grossly exaggerated and skewed in the minds of the general public, and by a great many Arborists.

I am happy for the tree to have the system there not because I believe failures are a significant threat to the well being of kids and adults under the tree, but because it means the tree will continue to be managed with an emphasis on improving the health of the soil and root environment...something that would not be possible otherwise.

I truely believe as a profession we have some way to go to get the message out to the general community just how crucial larger older trees are to our health, physical and mental and just how critical it is to retain established trees within urban areas in a manner that ensures their future healthy growth.

Looking from the outside the USA seems to have some of the best science in relation to the services trees provide down to a level of detail we are truely envious of here in Oz. There has also been a huge amount of hard work that has been going on for more than two decades disseminating the benchmarks of minimum protected soil volumes required for large spreading canopy trees.

It is kinda interesting when you consider that this particular tree has been impacted by the construction of a facility that is specifically designed to enable the general public...by and large young people....to expose themselves to heightened risks of sprains, fractures and brain trauma. I'm pretty sure there are no signs advising of the importance of PPE for these activities, there are certainly no pads installed on the edges or posts that are part of the facility.

Don't misunderstand me, I am comfortable with, and agree with the council building such facilities, I even think it is fine that they do not have the advisory notices etc...and yes potentially the tree does have parts that if they were to fail could potentially seriously injure park users...but risk management should IMO be focussed on the worst case scenario for an established target, that is most likely to occur (based on a documented risk assessment).

I certainly agree entirely that the threshold of what risk is acceptable or not shold be clearly understood and acceptable to the owners/managers of the tree/s in question....But I always try to ensure that this is based on a recognition of the value of the services established trees provide to us all, and the very low risk of serious harm or death that trees actually represent here in Oz or in the USA or in the UK.


----------



## treevet (Jan 31, 2010)

Are you able to limit your liability by wording in the contract Sean. We can do this here but it is still able to be contended in a court of law and it is not absolute. What I am trying to point out with some of my comments is that we become very capable in identifying high risk situations but the negative side of this is when we try to mitigate them we can never take all the risk out and will become a target if injury or property damage occurs. The only absolute is to take away the target or the tree. We stand more liable if this appeared to be the best management practice and we failed to do so.

Can we see the situation under the canopy in a picture.


----------



## jefflovstrom (Jan 31, 2010)

DANG!- Base cut and end this thread!!! Arr
Jeff


----------



## treevet (Jan 31, 2010)

jefflovstrom said:


> DANG!- Base cut and end this thread!!! Arr
> Jeff



Go back to your beard thread Jeff. :kilt:


----------



## treeseer (Jan 31, 2010)

treevet said:


> We stand more liable if this appeared to be the best management practice and we failed to do so.


Exactly, so we don't fail to follow standards so we sleep well at night after cabling trees, right, Dave?

Totally agree, Sean. We should see more padded poles, and less butchered trees.

O and, what do you think you would find if you were able to aerially inspect the crowns of the trees in Mike's pic 5 years from now?


----------



## jomoco (Jan 31, 2010)

treeseer said:


> O and, what do you think you would find if you were able to aerially inspect the crowns of the trees in Mike's pic 5 years from now?



You'd find 35-40 foot long weakly attached secondary growth, that OOMT and others in this thread believe they can maintain safely without reduction pruning, but rather selective thinning cuts and dynamic cobra cabling?

I ask them for examples of useful dynamic cabling and get a course in some funky failsafe branch weaving course to protect kids in a skate park?

WTF?

jomoco


----------



## treevet (Jan 31, 2010)

treeseer said:


> On the list of options, that was not the worst. It looks like most of the cuts were aimed at nodes. I would not call it wrong
> 
> Regret nothing--right on! It would take a while, with moans and groans, for me to prune a tree like mike showed. But it would still be fun!



Not the worst option???? It would be fun to top a tree????? Aiming at nodes????? Some of the protection capabilities of collar cuts?????

No regrets?......You should be ashamed of yourself Guy


----------



## Boa07 (Jan 31, 2010)

> Can we see the situation under the canopy in a picture.









View attachment 123645


View attachment 123646


----------



## jomoco (Jan 31, 2010)

Boa07 said:


> View attachment 123645
> 
> 
> View attachment 123646




Do you agree that your euc has been hacked at some point in it's past Boa07?

jomoco


----------



## Boa07 (Jan 31, 2010)

Try reading what has been previously posted, it'll save everyone time.


----------



## jefflovstrom (Jan 31, 2010)

treevet said:


> Go back to your beard thread Jeff. :kilt:



Not my thread
Jeff


----------



## treevet (Jan 31, 2010)

Boa07 said:


> View attachment 123645
> 
> 
> View attachment 123646



That looks like a typical park or zoo tree one would find in my city, just different species.


----------



## jomoco (Jan 31, 2010)

This has been a very interesting thread to me. I never knew that that topped trees can be safely maintenanced without reducing them again, through selective pruning and dynamic cabling!

Heck I never even knew dynamic cabling had any useful application whatsoever outside of fruit orchards period!

Boy the things I've learned in this thread!

jomoco


----------



## jomoco (Jan 31, 2010)

treevet said:


> That looks like a typical park or zoo tree one would find in my city, just different species.



Look at the second lowest branch on the left side TV, at about 20 feet out from the trunk, it changes from an 8-10 inch leader into a plurality of 2-3 inch leaders at one spot, a sure sign of being headed back at some point in it's past. This means the growth actually over the skate park is weakly attached secondary growth!

Now a mature topped tree like that can be safely maintained on an annual reduction pruning schedule with no problem, with a very low risk of failure. But that's not what Boa07 has done here, he sold them on a funky failsafe, rather than the standard annual safety pruning a veteran arborist would have recommended for a high traffic pedestrian tree, particularly one with secondary growth over the target area.

jomoco


----------



## treevet (Jan 31, 2010)

If this an opportunity to review some thoughts in this thread for contention I would like to add that you cannot without conscience TOP a large mature tree and somehow find "nodes" hidden in the large wood where the large cuts are made. And at this mysterious location there does not exist the same protection zone both chemical and physical that exist when removing branch material from stem material with a ntp cut. 

The sprouts generated by wounding are NOT a blend of epicormics and "endocormics" and somehow you just discern which is which and remove the former in this "restorative" pruning that makes TOPPING now ok, acceptable and even desirable. The tree's defense is not unchallenged just because the tree is not a "veteran" tree. Disease is not held in check because of future esoteric pruning.

Worthy of note while on the topping subject is that when tops are remove the roots that normally get their food from the tops begin to starve. Opportunistic diseases such as wilts and plane tree canker and root rots begin to enter into the equation (dynamic equilibrium) at this point.


----------



## treevet (Jan 31, 2010)

jomoco said:


> Look at the second lowest branch on the left side TV, at about 20 feet out from the trunk, it changes from an 8-10 inch leader into a plurality of 2-3 inch leaders at one spot, a sure sign of being headed back at some point in it's past. This means the growth actually over the skate park is weakly attached secondary growth!
> 
> Now a mature topped tree like that can be safely maintained on an annual reduction pruning schedule with no problem, with a very low risk of failure. But that's not what Boa07 has done here, he sold them on a funky failsafe, rather than the standard annual safety pruning a veteran arborist would have recommended for a high traffic pedestrian tree, particularly one with secondary growth over the target area.
> 
> jomoco



I don't see this as a hard and fast rule, the annual pruning after severe cutbacks. Many variables make the decision as when to make the corrective pruning. I can see annual inspections that Sean mentioned he intended to do.


----------



## ddhlakebound (Jan 31, 2010)

treeseer said:


> On the list of options, that was not the worst. It looks like most of the cuts were aimed at nodes. I would not call it wrong, especially without a "before" pic.
> 
> It would be really cool if you could take pics annually from the same spot and document response. Obviously there is a lot of confusion about euc mgt, with all us geniuses here having all this disagreement.
> 
> Regret nothing--right on! It would take a while, with moans and groans, for me to prune a tree like mike showed. But it would still be fun!





treevet said:


> Not the worst option???? It would be fun to top a tree????? Aiming at nodes????? Some of the protection capabilities of collar cuts?????
> 
> No regrets?......You should be ashamed of yourself Guy



To me, this is where the slippery slope of node trimming goes bad. 

It's easy for me to agree that node trimming to maintain the skeleton and dynamic mass of a storm damaged tree is the right thing to do, but these trees have been topped. 

They may have hit some nodes on some of the branches, but that does not appear to have been the trimmers goal in cut placement. Granted, we don't have the before pic to make any assessment. 

To me, thats a good ole round over, with all the cuts height targeted. Sure, it could have been worse. They could have taken off 100% of the foliage instead of 75%, they could have left no laterals where they left improper ones. 

Saying it's not the worst option is sort of a left handed compliment, where I feel like we should be saying that what they did was not in the top 3 options. 

Trimming previously hacked trees is one of the most difficult things arborists deal with, because most of our options have already been taken away and the damage has been done. But thats part of what makes things interesting, isn't it.


----------



## jomoco (Jan 31, 2010)

treevet said:


> I don't see this as a hard and fast rule, the annual pruning after severe cutbacks. Many variables make the decision as when to make the corrective pruning. I can see annual inspections that Sean mentioned he intended to do.



I'll grant that an annual pruning schedule would only apply if the client was doing his best to decrease his liability, short of cutting the tree down because it had been topped previously.

A 2-3 year pruning schedule is within norms for some species of topped trees, certainly. But certain species, like say Erythrina caffra, outside their natural environment in Africa, and in a man made commercial environment in SoCal, being fed prodigious amounts of fertilizer and water, will be lucky to last one year without falling apart during the summer growing season.

And eucs in that same environment can and do go a bit wild too.

jomoco


----------



## mikewhite85 (Feb 1, 2010)

ddhlakebound said:


> To me, this is where the slippery slope of node trimming goes bad.
> 
> It's easy for me to agree that node trimming to maintain the skeleton and dynamic mass of a storm damaged tree is the right thing to do, but these trees have been topped.
> 
> ...



Well... I might not have to do any restorative pruning because, ironically, I might remove them in a few weeks so I can dig my footing for a block wall, which the roots are blocking. (I cant see any other way to lay my footing... unless she decides on a dog ear fence instead)

It's unfortunate that the HO just spent a couple grand trimming those and a few other trees and may have to have them removed anyway. I imagine it's going to be tough grinding those hard euc stumps 2 feet down for my footing. 

The trees, by the way, looked great prior to being topped (about 1/3 of the height was reduced). They just needed a little deadwooding and light pruning. Incidentally, the guy not only topped them but spiked them as well. 

Here is another pic of some previously topped eucs that I tried to restore. The image quality is not great. I may have lion tailed them a little as well. I guess they look relatively normal though for trees that had once been topped. You guys probably have more experience with this than me. What do you think?

Funny thing is, MOST of my pruning is topping restoration. It's unbelievable how many licensed tree services top trees out here in socal (let alone the lawn guys). It's a wonder when I see crews with beautiful trucks and chippers butchering trees to reduce height, even at commercial properties and wealthy neighborhoods. Because it's so common, everyone thinks it's normal practice.

Even tomorrow, I am removing several trees at some apartments that had been butchered maybe 10 years ago (probably to 1/2 their size) and are now so rotten that I am terrified to climb them so my client is renting a lift for me


----------



## treeseer (Feb 1, 2010)

mikewhite85 said:


> ...about 1/3 of the height was reduced)


Let's see the tree's response before judging it.

And to all the critics, repeating--what would you have done?

How about post and pier support for the fence?

Those look like 3-4" cuts--you sure they're gonna rot that bad? I don't know eucs that well so I'm asking.


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 1, 2010)

jomoco said:


> You'd find 35-40 foot long weakly attached secondary growth, that OOMT and others in this thread believe they can maintain safely without reduction pruning, but rather selective thinning cuts and dynamic cobra cabling?
> 
> I ask them for examples of useful dynamic cabling and get a course in some funky failsafe branch weaving course to protect kids in a skate park?
> 
> ...



Honestly Jomoco, do you really read other peoples posts or do you just skim them? The answers to this post of yours are already in this thread if you are looking.



> Reduce the number of leaders per tree by one third. Despite that this is contrary to conventional 15-25% for mature trees remember that this is the equivalent of CPR for the tree. Discuss the prospect of DYNAMIC cabling for these trees if it is within the clients budget. If it is not, then walk them through the more cost effective method of removing the worst trees and replanting whilst restoring the stronger specimens.





> Whatever you do, please, please, please DO NOT top an E.camaldulensis above an existing obvious "topping point" The lesser of two evils is always to reduce the tree to its previous cut. Not pollarding in the correct sense of the word but 1000 times better then producing epicormic growth on top of epicormic growth and of course if it is done again... Epo on epo on epo......




Now read the above really slowly. Its ok to move your lips we cant ACTUALLY see you through the monitor thingie...

Ok. You done now?

Now as to reduction pruning? You didnt say that at all first time around that was Guy. Here is what YOU said.



> If you're not going to remove them, the only responsible course of treatment is to top them again at a relatively uniform heigth of 10-12 feet above the old topping cuts.



But its ok cos you gave your topping a fancy name so it MUST be ok.



> I believe the proper terminology for the third topping is tertiary growth crown restoration, rather than the second topping that I call secondary growth crown restoration.



Personally, whilst I have a great deal of respect for Guy's skills I will not be reducing a Eucalypt branch to a node anytime soon. If there is a suitable secondary branch at least 1/3 of the leaders diameter I will reduce to that. If there is nothing at all to reduce to then I will remove the tree and start over. 

As to examples of installed dynamic cabling I made it quite clear to those actually reading my posts that we have a stark LACK of cabling in this state. So it would be tough to give you a photo of something we don't see much of now wouldn't it?

You may blather on about what dynamic cabling does or doesnt do in YOUR opinion but I am happy to say that some of the best arborists in Europe and Australia strongly disagree with you. Worth noting that Yale Cordage make 2 tonne, 4 tonne and 8 tonne Yale Brace (Dynamic cable) for an Australian supplier so I guess they havent heard that it is worthless crap because they give it a ten year guarantee. Quick shoot Yale an email and let them know that your superior rope knowledge has detected a flaw in their engineering and all Yale Brace should be withdrawn from the market. Here is the link so know exactly which product to tell tham to recall. http://www.atraes.com.au/search.php?mode=search&page=1


----------



## treeseer (Feb 1, 2010)

outofmytree said:


> I will not be reducing a Eucalypt branch to a node anytime soon. If there is a suitable secondary branch at least 1/3 of the leaders diameter I will reduce to that. If there is nothing at all to reduce to then I will remove the tree and start over.


Hang on there, cowboy --what if the tree owner wants to keep it?

And what science is this 1/3 rule based on?


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 1, 2010)

treeseer said:


> Hang on there, cowboy --what if the tree owner wants to keep it?
> 
> And what science is this 1/3 rule based on?



I draw a line in the sand Guy. I will do the work I feel is within my capacity as an arborist and is in the clients and trees best interest. If there is work that is beyond me I will refer the client to a friend of mine who holds a dipArb, ISA certs and has an incredible range of skills. If they want me to top their trees despite my best explanations I show them the Yellow Pages, leave them a business card, (in case they change their mind) and bid them good day.



> "Man's gotta know his limitations." Harry Callaghan AKA Dirty Harry.



The rule of reducing to a secondary branch no less than 1/3 the diameter of the branch you are working is how I was trained and reinforced both by my admittedly limited experience but also by the discussions I have had with other arbs.


----------



## Boa07 (Feb 1, 2010)

> The sprouts generated by wounding are NOT a blend of epicormics and "endocormics" and somehow you just discern which is which and remove the former in this "restorative" pruning that makes TOPPING now ok, acceptable and even desirable.



Dave, I am pretty sure that is not what Guy is trying to say, and I know that is not what Gilman has written in his texts. As you know restorative work is an attempt to make the best of a flipping mess either created by the forces of nature or by poorly informed men with saws(none of those around here though!)

As for the other picture of the severely cut Eucs, as others have said very hard to know what the intention was, or if there even was a documented scope of works....even when there is, more often than not it still leaves way too much room for SNAFU rules to apply....ie reduce by no more than 30% can mean dramatically different things to the HO and to each tree company salesperson who provides them with a quote.



> Many variables make the decision as when to make the corrective pruning. I can see annual inspections that Sean mentioned he intended to do



Dave the inspections are carried out by the Arb firm I did that contract climbing for, as for the arguement to prune or not to prune there is an increasing understanding here of the difference between Hazard and Risk, and an appreciation of how documented tree risk assessments can be used to guide a defensible approach to the management of risk from tree populations. As consultants we have successes and set backs through the machinations of our own court system, but on the whole I think things are much less litigious than the USA.

IMO when it comes to potential solutions to tree related issues, one size does not fit all, unless of course you happen to be selling that one size...oh but that is just too cynical.


----------



## treevet (Feb 1, 2010)

Boa07 said:


> Dave, I am pretty sure that is not what Guy is trying to say, and I know that is not what Gilman has written in his texts. As you know restorative work is an attempt to make the best of a flipping mess either created by the forces of nature or by poorly informed men with saws(none of those around here though!)



I think that is exactly what he said. He said he would like to have done that job is he was physically capable. He would feel no remorse in doing it. He could correct the outcome with "restorative pruning".



> As consultants we have successes and set backs through the machinations of our own court system, but on the whole I think things are much less litigious than the USA.



The litigious aspect of our country is not all a negative that you make it appear to be. Laws or rights should not be violated or you will be dealt with (litigation). This is what defines the presence and degree of liability associated with a hazard tree.....

1. DUTY ...obligation or responsibility to care for trees

2. BREACH.....failure to act in a reasonable manner

3. CAUSE ....the breach of duty caused the injury to happen

4. HARM....injury or damage occurs (Anderson & Eaton 1986)





> IMO when it comes to potential solutions to tree related issues, one size does not fit all, unless of course you happen to be selling that one size...oh but that is just too cynical.



That is why some of our standards have developed as one size fits all (topping, flush cuts, arbitrary wounding, over fertilization, spiking, etc, etc,) were becoming prevalent treatments and they were not based on proper science.


----------



## Boa07 (Feb 1, 2010)

> The litigious aspect of our country is not all a negative that you make it appear to be



Dave, I am sure there are a great many positive aspects to the values and norms that have become part of legal precedent in many aspects of American life including trees and their management, but IMO I do think there are some negative aspects of that well developed legal economy...unless of course you are a lawyer.



> Quote:
> IMO when it comes to potential solutions to tree related issues, one size does not fit all, unless of course you happen to be selling that one size...oh but that is just too cynical.
> 
> That is why some of our standards have developed as one size fits all (topping, flush cuts, arbitrary wounding, over fertilization, spiking, etc, etc,) were becoming prevalent treatments and they were not based on proper science.



Dave I was referring to management options that do fall within the existing standards and BMPs, I don't have ANSI A300 (Part 3)-2006 in front of me but the last time I read it I'm pretty sure it does not preclude the use of dynamic systems. We certainly use it as a reference BMP document for cabling and bracing, since we currently have none of our own.


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 1, 2010)

treeseer said:


> Some newly formed adventitious buds may form and sprout, yes. But so may some preformed dormant buds, which are anchored to the core,so the growth from them is endocormic, much more stable.



I am interested in this statement and in all honesty too lazy to do my own reading as it has been a long day. How would you tell the good from the not-so-good? Or perhaps I should say endocormic from epicormic so as not to upset the latter )).


----------



## jomoco (Feb 1, 2010)

Boa07 said:


> Dave I was referring to management options that do fall within the existing standards and BMPs, I don't have ANSI A300 (Part 3)-2006 in front of me but the last time I read it I'm pretty sure it does not preclude the use of dynamic systems. We certainly use it as a reference BMP document for cabling and bracing, since we currently have none of our own.



I've always admired Australians for their common sense and get it done attitudes.

Which leads me to ask you what sense it makes to install a structural support system into a tree that is not stronger and more robust than the tree it's interacting with?

If I rub the two together, which will fail first?

Common sense mate.

jomoco


----------



## treevet (Feb 1, 2010)

Boa07 said:


> Dave I was referring to management options that do fall within the existing standards and BMPs, I don't have ANSI A300 (Part 3)-2006 in front of me but the last time I read it I'm pretty sure it does not preclude the use of dynamic systems. We certainly use it as a reference BMP document for cabling and bracing, since we currently have none of our own.



I do have the standard in front of me and, you are correct, dynamic cable systems are not precluded but excuse the lame analogy but neither is chewing gum strewn between 2 limbs for support precluded. 

Dynamic cables are not included in the ANSI standard.

I was at the Boone NC Shigo week long seminar in l993 and the guy that invented this system (or his direct agent) was there taking advantage of a captive high level audience. He was from Germany I believe. I told him what I thought of it then and I asked Al noting to him that when this system reaches the end of its "throw" does it not crush live cell tissue causing repeated injury just like a static rope would He agreed.


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 2, 2010)

treevet said:


> I do have the standard in front of me and, you are correct, dynamic cable systems are not precluded but excuse the lame analogy but neither is chewing gum strewn between 2 limbs for support precluded.
> 
> Dynamic cables are not included in the ANSI standard.
> 
> I was at the Boone NC Shigo week long seminar in l993 and the guy that invented this system (or his direct agent) was there taking advantage of a captive high level audience. He was from Germany I believe. I told him what I thought of it then and I asked Al noting to him that when this system reaches the end of its "throw" does it not crush live cell tissue causing repeated injury just like a static rope would He agreed.



Dave just to be clear on this, are you talking about the possibility that the cable may "choke" the limb to which it is attached after some period of time due to growth of the tree? If so, it is worth noting that, in WA at least, the standard installation taught is to allow enough slack in the system to prevent choking whilst still ensuring a limb will be "caught" should it fail. 

It is also S.O.P. as I am sure it is for the static systems you install, to encourage follow up inspections every 2-3 years to ensure the tree is well maintained. One of the great benefits of dynamic cabling is that it is relatively simple to adjust the cable length and a smart installer will allow for this need by leaving usable slack at each end.


----------



## Ekka (Feb 2, 2010)

treevet said:


> I was at the Boone NC Shigo week long seminar in l993 and the guy that invented this system (or his direct agent) was there taking advantage of a captive high level audience. He was from Germany I believe. I told him what I thought of it then and I asked Al noting to him that when this system reaches the end of its "throw" *does it not crush live cell tissue* causing repeated injury just like a static rope would He agreed.



At what PSI will living tissues beneath the bark be crushed by the rope?

What is the psi exerted by the rope at end of "throw"?

Does the system have a mechanism for absorbtion of the shock reducing the impact upon the one point when reaching end of it's "throw"? ... It is not like a dog bolting down the driveway about to run out of chain with a sudden whiplash effect wrenching it's head off is it. Nor did Dan Osman have his body cells crushed when throwing himself off cliffs with dynamic rope. :monkey:

I believe these are the answers Shigo should have sought and investigated before passing a sweeping comment.


----------



## treevet (Feb 2, 2010)

Dan probably had a lot of space to play with prior to hitting a hard surface (not interested in following your link) and taking on massive injuries. The dynamic system either allows too much movement thus ending in causing the defect to fail or the movement is stopped (abruptly) at some point in extreme conditions not allowing the movement to "get out of bounds".....or it would fail. I think you overestimate the sensitivity or adjustability of such a system that has unmeasurable variables. You have a lot of opinions from someone that has said he does no cabling. Guess it is book smarts?:monkey:

Steel cable says stop....the movement STOPS.


----------



## Ekka (Feb 3, 2010)

treevet said:


> You have a lot of opinions from someone that has said he does no cabling.



When did I say that?

And since that date has it changed? Oh, you wouldn't know that's right. :monkey: But you pass off opinion on a few things you know little about, like this subject.

You have poor knowledge of dyanamic systems and physics, dont even understand reaction wood, dodge the questions asked, change your opinion to suit the occasion doing more backflips than a dolphin at Seaworld. 


treevet said:


> The dynamic system either allows too much movement thus ending in causing the defect to fail or the movement is stopped (abruptly) at some point in extreme conditions not allowing the movement to "get out of bounds".....or it would fail.



Too much movement allowing the defect to fail ... really. :monkey:

and if it doesn't fail then the movement is stopped abruptly. :monkey: :monkey:

Interesting, we best tell those companies to burn their ropes then, and their shock absorbers/accessories.


----------



## treevet (Feb 4, 2010)

Ekka said:


> When did I say that?
> 
> And since that date has it changed? Oh, you wouldn't know that's right. :monkey: But you pass off opinion on a few things you know little about, like this subject.
> 
> ...



I'll just bet you recently got one of your 42 credits (oops....meant units...sorry... lol) on cabling. Now you are the expert. Did the prof. let you get your fat ass up a tree and try it out? The only way you gonna get up a tree these days is with a pair of spikes on, and even then...... 

Oh and yeah.....burn em all.


----------



## jefflovstrom (Feb 4, 2010)

Dang Treevet, You sure know how to " Soap- Opera" a thread. 
Jeff


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Feb 4, 2010)

This post reminds me of why its nice to have enough good work coming in to avoid needing to take work that could be viewed as questionable or impractical.

So much easier to say no, and then a yes to another caller with good work.

Hedges can be an exception, but I don't go out of my way for hedges either. Turned down about half the hedge work calls last year.


----------



## treevet (Feb 4, 2010)

treeseer said:


> And to all the critics, repeating--what would you have done?



If I understand what you are saying.....I agree, M.D.

Treeseer presses...."what would you do???"

You are called for consultation. You look at the options.....do you cable the tree over the playground? Or in the second scenario.....do you top the Euc?

What would you do (Treeseer asks) in these 2 different consultations?

How about nothing at all. 2 treatments given.....one inadvisable, or even unethical (topping)....the other one questionable at best (elastic supports).

Third option....do nothing at all and don't assume liability (for assessing and completing perceived mitigating treatment). Go do another job and let someone else assume liability for the people underneath the tree over the playground or let a removal expert step in as that is really (maybe now, maybe later) the best treatment for way too big and fragile/brittle trees over human's dwellings.


----------



## jomoco (Feb 4, 2010)

I've gotta euc that's slated for removal that was topped about 10-12 years ago, that few arborists except me think has ever been topped. The secondary growth is about 45 feet long, and I admit that it's a beautiful euc. But the problem is it's over a twostory condo. My recommendation to remove it has been hotly debated by residents and other arborists as well who doubt the tree was ever topped.

Since I'm removing other far more hazardous secondary growth eucs on the same property tomorrow, I will take a short vid of the euc in question then, and post it for my Australian counterparts to comment on and give an opinion as to whether I will be proved right or wrong about it being a topped tree?

Of course I intend to forensically prove it's been topped by ripping the pertinent trunk section and exposing the old topping cut hidden within.

I'll post the vid in this thread tomorrow, but will start a new thread when I take the tree down and rip the trunk to determine it's weak secondary growth faults.

jomoco


----------



## jefflovstrom (Feb 4, 2010)

Ah!, To live in San Diego! Lots going on!
Jeff


----------



## treevet (Feb 4, 2010)

jomoco said:


> I've gotta euc that's slated for removal that was topped about 10-12 years ago, that few arborists except me think has ever been topped. The secondary growth is about 45 feet long, and I admit that it's a beautiful euc. But the problem is it's over a twostory condo. My recommendation to remove it has been hotly debated by residents and other arborists as well who doubt the tree was ever topped.
> 
> Since I'm removing other far more hazardous secondary growth eucs on the same property tomorrow, I will take a short vid of the euc in question then, and post it for my Australian counterparts to comment on and give an opinion as to whether I will be proved right or wrong about it being a topped tree?
> 
> ...



Awful hard to look good when you are taking down a controversial tree too, even if you are 100% in the right, they don't know that or more usually they don't care.


----------



## Boa07 (Feb 5, 2010)

It is always interesting to read the opinion of others, and I don't reject those opinions out of hand, without some consideration of what you have to offer.

Despite your disdain for dynamic systems Dave it was entirely appropriate in the case of the fall arrest/branch snare set up for the veteran tree adjacent to the skate park.

I'll take VTA advice based on pics on the internet from the US Arborists on a tree I climbed and inspected and completed a documented tree risk assessment on, with a truck load of salt thanks.

I have never implied that static systems do not have a place in the options that tree owners and managers should consider. Thankfully I am able to provide other options where I deem appropriate based on my _very limited _ (according to some here) knowledge and experience of the trees I work with.


----------



## jomoco (Feb 5, 2010)

treevet said:


> Awful hard to look good when you are taking down a controversial tree too, even if you are 100% in the right, they don't know that or more usually they don't care.



More than enough of that area's residents ended up with big eucs crushing their roofs in during our last windstorm to get their attention in a big way TV.

That combined with my technical removal ability using speedlines and my hobbs, keeps me lookin good despite my age and general orthopedic frailties!

Euc makes great firewood too.

jomoco


----------



## treevet (Feb 5, 2010)

Boa07 said:


> It is always interesting to read the opinion of others, and I don't reject those opinions out of hand, without some consideration of what you have to offer.
> 
> Despite your disdain for dynamic systems Dave it was entirely appropriate in the case of the fall arrest/branch snare set up for the veteran tree adjacent to the skate park.
> 
> ...



I think you are one of the most knowledgeable arborists I have ever conversed on forums with or anywhere for that matter Sean. We just have a difference of opinion here and despite my doubtfulness (not disdain) for the merits of elastic support system (esp in my applications) I also am leery of appearing to "snare" all of the branches when in reality you probably will only snare a fraction of them (and maybe the ones that fail are the unsnared ones).


----------



## treevet (Feb 5, 2010)

jomoco said:


> More than enough of that area's residents ended up with big eucs crushing their roofs in during our last windstorm to get their attention in a big way TV.
> 
> That combined with my technical removal ability using speedlines and my hobbs, keeps me lookin good despite my age and general orthopedic frailties!
> 
> ...



I understand but there is always one or a few that step in the front and cast doubt on the unknowing and this is where I meant that you sometimes look bad.

I removed a historical oak a few years ago that dropped a giant leader between two 200 year old Victorians and when I visited the scene I put a polesaw through the 12 foot wide base. Prior to removal a local forestry board member demanded to know why I was beginning the removal and I explained in detail (hey in the end the tree could be flush cut with an 020 and it was at least 120' tall).

I told him that when this tree fails someone on the road by a school or in any of 4 houses or passerby's could be killed. His response was "so what, you should leave the tree there anyway". He made a big fuss around town about it and How you gonna bring everyone over there and show them the stump.

Especially these days your going to have people just driving by a big removal thinking they are doing the right thing making a fuss about it.


----------



## jomoco (Feb 5, 2010)

treevet said:


> I understand but there is always one or a few that step in the front and cast doubt on the unknowing and this is where I meant that you sometimes look bad.
> 
> I removed a historical oak a few years ago that dropped a giant leader between two 200 year old Victorians and when I visited the scene I put a polesaw through the 12 foot wide base. Prior to removal a local forestry board member demanded to know why I was beginning the removal and I explained in detail (hey in the end the tree could be flush cut with an 020 and it was at least 120' tall).
> 
> ...



How did Shakespear describe his foremost principle to live by?

According to the Gilligan's Island I grew up with, it went,

"There's just one other thing, you ought to do, to thine own self be true".

jomoco


----------



## Boa07 (Feb 5, 2010)

> I think you are one of the most knowledgeable arborists I have ever conversed on forums with or anywhere for that matter Sean. We just have a difference of opinion here and despite my doubtfulness (not disdain) for the merits of elastic support system (esp in my applications) I also am leery of appearing to "snare" all of the branches when in reality you probably will only snare a fraction of them (and maybe the ones that fail are the unsnared ones).



Thankyou for those words Dave, I have a very high regard for the discussion you and I have had in the past and look forward to many more.

The only reason I actually got involved in the thread at all was because I did not want a misunderstanding about what was behind the system shown in the picture posted up.

I agree such snares won't get all the branches, we took the approach of very carefully identifying all the branches above the target area and roped those. It was all done with a clear understanding of the results of my quantified risk assessment, and following discussion with the asset owner.

I know we won't agree on every aspects of our work, that is a good thing I think, even the limited amount of exchange we have had over this has led me to clarify in my own mind what it is i think I am doing when I advise cabling for a specific tree.


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 5, 2010)

jomoco said:


> I've gotta euc that's slated for removal that was topped about 10-12 years ago, that few arborists except me think has ever been topped. The secondary growth is about 45 feet long, and I admit that it's a beautiful euc. But the problem is it's over a twostory condo. My recommendation to remove it has been hotly debated by residents and other arborists as well who doubt the tree was ever topped.
> 
> Since I'm removing other far more hazardous secondary growth eucs on the same property tomorrow, I will take a short vid of the euc in question then, and post it for my Australian counterparts to comment on and give an opinion as to whether I will be proved right or wrong about it being a topped tree?
> 
> ...



This sounds like a great idea. I look forward to putting my foot in my mouth as to where it was or was not previously topped. PM's are always fun and sometimes offer some real surprises.

If I might make so bold, how about getting your mate with the snazzy new camera to take some quality stills before you start the job.


----------



## jomoco (Feb 5, 2010)

Here's the euc in question guys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FeRejor6jI

jomoco


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 21, 2010)

Been out at Kings park with my boys today and saw a tree worth a couple of pictures for this thread. This _P.radiata _had dynamic cable added recently to make sure that, in the event of a branch failure, no serious damage would be done to the heritage building adjacent to it.

I believe there are some misconceptions as to the purpose of dynamic cabling in trees and I would like to correct those if I may. This cable is not intended to support the tree in any way. Rather it is much like a fall arrest harness we might wear in a bucket. It is there just in case. Note the slack around the stems. I believe this addresses TV's concern regarding possible "choking" of leaders and if you look closely there is as much as half a metre of slack at each end for later adjustemnt. 







Here is the cable running out to the branch as support in case of catastrophic failure.






Sorry I couldnt find a Euc which has been cabled in similar fashion but as I have said before, there are just not enough cabled trees in WA.

I do not believe that static or dynamic cabling is the only solution but rather that each has its place in preserving what otherwise may have been a tree slated for removal.


----------



## jomoco (Feb 21, 2010)

P. radiata?

jomoco


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 21, 2010)

jomoco said:


> P. radiata?
> 
> jomoco



_Pinus radiata_

Actually that was an educated guess as I truthfully did not look closely at the petioles to determine numbers but I think it a pretty safe bet.


----------



## jomoco (Feb 21, 2010)

Don't bet on it my friend.

jomoco


----------



## treevet (Feb 21, 2010)

No misconceptions here in regards to dynamic cabling. If one takes a substantial fall (your analogy) then at some point he is captured and quite possibly his back is broken or more serious injuries are sustained from the fall arrest system.

At some point that system (pictured) has to capture the movement from exceeding the distance that initiates failure in the defect. At that point live cell tissue on the back side of the supported limb/s will be compressed.

Why not put a static system in your pictured tree? There is no reason and it is bullet proof. I think usually the reason is most people have never learned how to install them.


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 21, 2010)

jomoco said:


> Don't bet on it my friend.
> 
> jomoco



Ok smartypants. If it makes you feel better I will go back to the site and count. Now that species ID is out of the way, this is, IMHO, a good example of dynamic cabling.


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 21, 2010)

treevet said:


> No misconceptions here in regards to dynamic cabling. If one takes a substantial fall (your analogy) then at some point he is captured and quite possibly his back is broken or more serious injuries are sustained from the fall arrest system.
> 
> At some point that system (pictured) has to capture the movement from exceeding the distance that initiates failure in the defect. At that point live cell tissue on the back side of the supported limb/s will be compressed.
> 
> Why not put a static system in your pictured tree? There is no reason and it is bullet proof. I think usually the reason is most people have never learned how to install them.



Good question Dave. Why not put a static system in place? Firstly there is no acknowledged defect in the tree. Secondly any static system, by default, becomes part of the trees structure. Similar to a wheelchair being essential to a paraplegic getting around. But if there is the option of say, walking canes and physio why not use it? Dynamic systems allow the tree to support itself whilst providing a failsafe in a worst case scenario. 

Again I say, neither system is the be-all and end-all of tree care but rather each has its place in the modern arborists tool kit.


----------



## jomoco (Feb 21, 2010)

Just compare your tree to an actual P. radiata my friend.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Pinus_radiata.JPG

P. radiata is one of the most susceptible pines there is to both the Ipps beetle and pitch canker fungus. Though they still thrive in N. Calif in the coastal fog, they are dying left and right in SoCal, as illustrated in the pic above, the tree is half dead, browned out, and not the deep vibrant british racing green of a healthy thriving Monterrey pine in the bay areas of SF.

Oh, and dynamic cabling is snake oil sales to the gullible unwary customer.

jomoco


----------



## treevet (Feb 21, 2010)

outofmytree said:


> Good question Dave. Why not put a static system in place? Firstly there is no acknowledged defect in the tree. Secondly any static system, by default, becomes part of the trees structure. Similar to a wheelchair being essential to a paraplegic getting around. But if there is the option of say, walking canes and physio why not use it? Dynamic systems allow the tree to support itself whilst providing a failsafe in a worst case scenario.
> 
> Again I say, neither system is the be-all and end-all of tree care but rather each has its place in the modern arborists tool kit.



I don't agree with that post including the analogy but hey, can't imagine agreeing on everything on a forum.

Is what you are saying that you install the system and after years you have made the tree capable of not needing any system (when previously it needed one)?


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 21, 2010)

treevet said:


> I don't agree with that post including the analogy but hey, can't imagine agreeing on everything on a forum.
> 
> Is what you are saying that you install the system and after years you have made the tree capable of not needing any system (when previously it needed one)?



Analogies are like rectums and we all know where that analogy is going.... 

My point is that, in this case, the tree did not require support but rather that there was pressure to remove the limb over the building or indeed remove the entire tree. If support is not *required* then why supply it.

Getting back to the OP and to why we are discussing dynamic vs static cabling, *one* of my suggestions was to discuss dynamic cabling of trees which, although not evidently in need of support, were statistically more likely to fail than average. Getting back to my poor analogy, much like wearing a fall arrest harness in a bucket. As a long term bucket owner Dave, I am sure you would recommend the harness over the option of being the stone in the slingshot as can occasionally occur.


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 21, 2010)

jomoco said:


> Just compare your tree to an actual P. radiata my friend.
> 
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Pinus_radiata.JPG
> 
> ...



Nice picture Jomoco. I will keep my word and return to the site to take enough pictures for a positive ID. 



> Oh, and dynamic cabling is snake oil sales to the gullible unwary customer.


 In your opinion. An opinion not held by many well credentialled arborists around the world. I would welcome any argument you have that is supported by fact or even reasonable conjecture rather than bald faced statements with no credibilty attached.


----------



## jomoco (Feb 21, 2010)

outofmytree said:


> Firstly there is no acknowledged defect in the tree.



So why then are you selling snake oil to your customer, instead of explaining the the structural dynamics of how compression and tension wood is formed in the tree naturally?

jomoco


----------



## treevet (Feb 21, 2010)

treevet said:


> Is what you are saying that you install the system and after years you have made the tree capable of not needing any system (when previously it needed one)?



You never answered the question you begged by suggesting through analogy this was the reason for your treatment.


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 21, 2010)

jomoco said:


> So why then are you selling snake oil to your customer, instead of explaining the the structural dynamics of how compression and tension wood is formed in the tree naturally?
> 
> jomoco



You should read other peoples posts more carefully Jomoco. I didn't sell anything to anyone I simply took photographs of work that I had some prior knowledge of. That aside, do you have insurance on your truck? Your house? Yourself? If you are a professional you will of course say yes. You are a professional right? 

So then you understand the concept of "just in case". That is, in my opinion, the value of dynamic cabling. If the worst occurs, no one dies and no property gets damaged. Cast your mind back to Boa's cabling pictures and it is essentially the same thing. Not a system to support the tree but rather a system to keep people and property safe.

If the choices are remove a tree to satisfy a clients fear of a *possible* failure vs dynamic cabling which allows the tree to grow as it should but ensures the safety of all then the latter is my preferred choice.


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 21, 2010)

treevet said:


> You never answered the question you begged by suggesting through analogy this was the reason for your treatment.



Sorry Dave but I don't get this one? Maybe I missed a previous comment?


----------



## jomoco (Feb 21, 2010)

outofmytree said:


> You should read other peoples posts more carefully Jomoco. I didn't sell anything to anyone I simply took photographs of work that I had some prior knowledge of. That aside, do you have insurance on your truck? Your house? Yourself? If you are a professional you will of course say yes. You are a professional right?
> 
> So then you understand the concept of "just in case". That is, in my opinion, the value of dynamic cabling. If the worst occurs, no one dies and no property gets damaged. Cast your mind back to Boa's cabling pictures and it is essentially the same thing. Not a system to support the tree but rather a system to keep people and property safe.
> 
> If the choices are remove a tree to satisfy a clients fear of a *possible* failure vs dynamic cabling which allows the tree to grow as it should but ensures the safety of all then the latter is my preferred choice.



There is no value to dynamic cabling to anyone but the arborist selling it to the gullible customer.

It's like a quack doctor saying, " Although there's no broken bones in your arm, I'm going to put this cast on it to make it stronger just in case."

jomoco


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 21, 2010)

jomoco said:


> There is no value to dynamic cabling to anyone but the arborist selling it to the gullible customer.
> 
> It's like a quack doctor saying, " Although there's no broken bones in your arm, I'm going to put this cast on it to make it stronger just in case."
> 
> jomoco



Still waiting for a clear, well reasoned objection as to why dynamic cabling has zero value to the tree and the HO.

And just so you know. In real life, anyone calling me a quack and snake oil salesman in the space of an hour is either a fast runner or has good medical.


----------



## jomoco (Feb 21, 2010)

outofmytree said:


> Still waiting for a clear, well reasoned objection as to why dynamic cabling has zero value to the tree and the HO.
> 
> And just so you know. In real life, anyone calling me a quack and snake oil salesman in the space of an hour is either a fast runner or has good medical.



Oh, so you get to spout mistaken tree ID, and the many virtues of snake oil, because you can kick my butt?

jomoco


----------



## treevet (Feb 21, 2010)

outofmytree said:


> Still waiting for a clear, well reasoned objection as to why dynamic cabling has zero value to the tree and the HO.



I think it not only has zero value but more so it is a liability as a treatment. If it works to protect failure it compresses conductive tissue .....if it does not engage prior to the defect failing it allows the failure.....all the while....

giving a false sense of security to or regarding to the target.


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 21, 2010)

jomoco said:


> Oh, so you get to spout mistaken tree ID, and the many virtues of snake oil, because you can kick my butt?
> 
> jomoco



Oh dear. Deja vu. 

I have said that ID was uncertain and that I would provide more photographs for confirmation.

As to the rest of your "contributions". So far you have provided no argument against dynamic cabling whatsoever. You have however, called me by inference, a quack and a snake oil salesman. Compare this to what Treevet has posted 


> At some point that system (pictured) has to capture the movement from exceeding the distance that initiates failure in the defect. At that point live cell tissue on the back side of the supported limb/s will be compressed.



TV and I may disagree on this subject but at least we can remain civil. Is your lack of reasoned response a function of your lack of knowledge?


----------



## jomoco (Feb 21, 2010)

Ah yes, knowledge, that trees and people share the use it or lose it aspects of building strength and muscle mass?

I thought my quack doctor scenario of casting an arm to make it somehow stronger was spot on, mate!

You must be a master certified arborist, oooh.

jomoco


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 21, 2010)

treevet said:


> I think it not only has zero value but more so it is a liability as a treatment. If it works to protect failure it compresses conductive tissue .....if it does not engage prior to the defect failing it allows the failure.....all the while....
> 
> giving a false sense of security to or regarding to the target.



Good point. If the purpose of a dynamic system is to support the tree that is but, by name alone, it should be evident that this is not its purpose. Again I refer you to the 2 photographic cases in this thread where the purpose of the system was to prevent harm to people or buildings in the event of a catastrophic failure. 

I infer from your posts that it is your opinion (please correct me if I have misintepreted) that if a tree shows any *possible* sign of potential failure that an arborist should immediately throw in a steel cable to hold it in its current place. It is my opinion that this tree, left to its own devices, would find a way to support any limb or it would "drop" it. In either of these circumstances a dynamic system, properly installed, would allow the tree to add tissue as required whilst providing a failsafe should nature overcome nature.

Please understand I am not referring to trees with existing evident structural faults which require bracing or similar support but rather those which *MAY* fail in the right/wrong circumstance.


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 21, 2010)

jomoco said:


> Ah yes, knowledge, that trees and people share the use it or lose it aspects of building strength and muscle mass?
> 
> I thought my quack doctor scenario of casting an arm to make it somehow stronger was spot on, mate!
> 
> ...



And still we wait for your 20/30/40 (?) years of industry experience to lend you some credible argument. It is obvious that you do not like or support dynamic cabling but have you any argument that actually holds water? Is all you have to contribute to this thread the drivel that has preceded this post? I honestly expected better of someone approaching 60.


----------



## treevet (Feb 21, 2010)

outofmytree said:


> Good point. If the purpose of a dynamic system is to support the tree that is but, by name alone, it should be evident that this is not its purpose. Again I refer you to the 2 photographic cases in this thread where the purpose of the system was to prevent harm to people or buildings in the event of a catastrophic failure.
> 
> I infer from your posts that it is your opinion (please correct me if I have misintepreted) that if a tree shows any *possible* sign of potential failure that an arborist should immediately throw in a steel cable to hold it in its current place. It is my opinion that this tree, left to its own devices, would find a way to support any limb or it would "drop" it. In either of these circumstances a dynamic system, properly installed, would allow the tree to add tissue as required whilst providing a failsafe should nature overcome nature.
> 
> Please understand I am not referring to trees with existing evident structural faults which require bracing or similar support but rather those which *MAY* fail in the right/wrong circumstance.



If they "may fail in the right/wrong circumstances" and there is a target involved...... then they need to be ABSOLUTELY contained....not sorta supported or, in Boa's capturing of "some of the limbs that may fall off "sometime".....and let's play the percentages with people's noggins.

Let's look at this from another perspective....

This system.....dynamic....WOULD work IF....

On co doms you put a rope on the top of the leads and pull them until they start making that cracking noise you hear just before failure (pull test).....then you measure it in distance from a fixed object.....then you install a (phantom) guage on your dynamic system and an activating mechanism that begins to activate just prior to reaching that distance and brings the whole movement to a creepingly slow stop 

Kinda like my dad teaching me to drive ....put a glass of water on the back window ledge in the car and told me when I stop....don't spill any water.

Do the same thing with lateral branches and the pull test and the guage and the activating (phantom) mechanism.

Then you sold me on this bullshiht system.

When I put a cable in I say to the stem..."you stay right there"....and it STAYS right there.


----------



## treevet (Feb 21, 2010)

What is this huge affinity for reaction wood (conifers...compression wood on the leaning side of the wood....deciduous...tension wood on the opp side of the lean) why must it be nurtured???

The answer..for profit for the manufacturer of this system.

If a defect or potential defect or potential failure has been recognized then the need for reaction wood manufacturing is rendered moot by eliminating the need for it.


----------



## jomoco (Feb 21, 2010)

treevet said:


> What is this huge affinity for reaction wood (conifers...compression wood on the leaning side of the wood....deciduous...tension wood on the opp side of the lean) why must it be nurtured???
> 
> The answer..for profit for the manufacturer of this system.
> 
> If a defect or potential defect or potential failure has been recognized then the need for reaction wood manufacturing is rendered moot by eliminating the need for it.



Ah quit spoutin logical drivel that's spot on old man!

jomoco


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 21, 2010)

treevet said:


> What is this huge affinity for reaction wood (conifers...compression wood on the leaning side of the wood....deciduous...tension wood on the opp side of the lean) why must it be nurtured???
> 
> The answer..for profit for the manufacturer of this system.
> 
> If a defect or potential defect or potential failure has been recognized then the need for reaction wood manufacturing is rendered moot by eliminating the need for it.



And if the limb under question is significant? If you remove it the potential for infection is tremendous. If it is cabled and held rigid despite not showing a defect then the tree will use the cable as support regardless, which undermines the trees own growth and guarantees the need for ongoing inspections and/or corrections. 

I am still waiting for a reasonable objection to a "what if" solution that allows both the tree to develop and the HO to sleep easy.

As to the profit for the manufacturer of dynamic cabling systems.... the material is less than half the cost of static systems materials over here. The time to install is also far less. So who is making more money out of cabling? 

I don't want this to turn into a blazing row over ideology. I am not saying that static systems are now somehow obsolete but rather that there is more than one way to skin a cat and especially referring to the OP that dynamic cabling is a sound option.


----------



## treevet (Feb 21, 2010)

outofmytree said:


> > I am still waiting for a reasonable objection to a "what if" solution that allows both the tree to develop and the HO to sleep easy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 22, 2010)

> Now we are getting to the TRUTH....you have no idea how to cable, want to make some money, and this is your most important consideration.



This is unworthy of you Treevet. I am certainly in business to be profitable but I have NEVER put profit before principle. My desire to cable trees is to preserve what may otherwise be removed. I simply choose to do so using different methodology from your own. Methodology I might add that is used around the world by thousands of skilled arborists.


----------



## treeslayer (Feb 22, 2010)

outofmytree said:


> I am certainly in business to be profitable but I have NEVER put profit before principle. .



*famous last words* in this economy sadly.......................


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 22, 2010)

treeslayer said:


> *famous last words* in this economy sadly.......................



I plan and hope to never be that desperate TS. So far so good.


----------



## jomoco (Feb 22, 2010)

Document your justifications for selling snake oil(dynamic cabling) with ANSI, ISA or any other credible cabling standards then mate, not the manufacturers lame pamphlets or sales adds.

If you can't see the contradiction of very basic reaction wood fundamentals that dynamic cabling presents in it's use, you obviously don't understand why unstaking a young planted tree is absolutely necessary for it's structural integrity as an adult tree.

You're taking advantage of your customers fear and lack of arboricultural knowledge, for profit, and doing nothing for the tree's benefit, indeed the tree and customer are both harmed by you selling snake oil to the unwary.

jomoco


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 22, 2010)

jomoco said:


> If you can't see the contradiction of very basic reaction wood fundamentals that dynamic cabling presents in it's use, you obviously don't understand why unstaking a young planted tree is absolutely necessary for it's structural integrity as an adult tree.



Is this juxtaposition a typo or just a poor analogy?


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 22, 2010)

jomoco said:


> Document your justifications for selling snake oil(dynamic cabling) with ANSI, ISA or any other credible cabling standards then mate, not the manufacturers lame pamphlets or sales adds.
> 
> jomoco



Better yet. Why don't you start a class action against those companies who promote this type of product if you believe it really is a fraud.


----------



## treevet (Feb 22, 2010)

outofmytree said:


> This is unworthy of you Treevet. I am certainly in business to be profitable



I calls em as I sees em.


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 22, 2010)

jomoco said:


> You're taking advantage of your customers fear and lack of arboricultural knowledge, for profit, and doing nothing for the tree's benefit, indeed the tree and customer are both harmed by you selling snake oil to the unwary.
> 
> jomoco





> If you're not going to remove them, the only responsible course of treatment is to top them again at a relatively uniform heigth of 10-12 feet above the old topping cuts.
> 
> Make it perfectly clear in the contract that followup pruning within 3-5 years is mandatory to avoid a hazardous tree situation from developing again as a result of topping.
> 
> ...



The only person here promoting tree harm is you. Topping for profit? Go hang your head in shame.


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 22, 2010)

treevet said:


> I calls em as I sees em.



No you didn't. You called it as you wanted it to be.


----------



## jomoco (Feb 22, 2010)

outofmytree said:


> Is this juxtaposition a typo or just a poor analogy?



It's a spot on analogy for even a beginning arborist mate.

Why do young potted nursery trees need to be staked after planting?

Because they were propagated in a controlled wind sheltered environment?

Why are natural seedling trees able to grow structurally robust in nature with no staking whatsoever?

It's because exposure to wind causes dynamic movement and forces to be applied on the wood that it REACTS to by putting on more mass in the form of tension or compression wood.

Any time you shelter that tree by limiting the natural forces exerted on it, it becomes dependent on that support compared to an unsupported tree, which is why cabling can only be justified when a REAL structural fault in the tree actually exists.

You're selling snake oil everytime you sell a dynamic cabling job mate.

jomoco


----------



## treevet (Feb 22, 2010)

outofmytree said:


> No you didn't. You called it as you wanted it to be.



Have you ever installed 1 cable system in a tree?


----------



## treeseer (Feb 22, 2010)

jomoco said:


> Any time you shelter that tree by limiting the natural forces exerted on it, it becomes dependent on that support compared to an unsupported tree, which is why cabling can only be justified when a REAL structural fault in the tree actually exists.


I agree, if it's understood that it's somewhat, not absolutely, totally, dependent. If all supported trees became absolutely dependent, then you might have some basis for this:


> You're selling snake oil everytime you sell a dynamic cabling job mate.



But this dependence is not total or absolute. Like you and tv, I prefer steel in most cases, but geez you two guys gotta open your intelligent minds to the uses of dynamic too. So far in this thread you 2 seem like Energizer Bunnies. :deadhorse:


----------



## jomoco (Feb 22, 2010)

treeseer said:


> I agree, if it's understood that it's somewhat, not absolutely, totally, dependent. If all supported trees became absolutely dependent, then you might have some basis for this:
> 
> But this dependence is not total or absolute. Like you and tv, I prefer steel in most cases, but geez you two guys gotta open your intelligent minds to the uses of dynamic too. So far in this thread you 2 seem like Energizer Bunnies. :deadhorse:



You're cordially invited to document the justifications for installing a dynamic cable in any tree, in the pertinent ISA or Ansi cabling standards as well Treeseer.

And unlike OOMT, I suspect that you can actually do it, since I parted ways with both ANSI and the ISA 15 years ago, I wouldn't doubt that they've fallen for this dynamic cabling BS hook line and sinker.

If their new narc off ethics policies are any indication of their critical logical thinking abilities, I'm not impressed, and very glad I left them so many years ago.

I know! Let's cable every branch a pedestrian has to walk under with a rubber band!

We'll be rich!

Not!

jomoco


----------



## treeseer (Feb 22, 2010)

jomoco said:


> ... I parted ways with .... ANSI ...



:looser:


----------



## jomoco (Feb 22, 2010)

treeseer said:


> :looser:



Yes the current ANSI cabling standards make no distinction between hardwood trees like elm and oak, and softwood trees like pines and corals(Erythrina), in terms of whether J lags are appropriate terminations when installing a cable? As long as the wood is healthy, J lag away!

It's a friggin joke!

According to ANSI, I can install a cable, using J lags, to support a known structural fault, in a softwood tree like a pine or coral. Essentially creating ticking timebombs in a customer's tree, by following the current to this very day, Ansi cabling standard.

It's more than just a joke, it's an embarrassment to the arboricultural profession as a whole.

But I'm not laughing, I don't think endangering people or trees is funny in the least.

jomoco


----------



## Ekka (Feb 22, 2010)

treeseer said:


> :looser:



Interesting, you are at it again!

Some-one does something for a reason, quite a valid one it appears but you have to brand them in a derogatory fashion insinuating they're a loser. 

Shame on Guy, you certainly need help. 

Standards are not laws, some people become experts in their fields others become drones of standards. Standards seldom can cater for every scenario and that's where experts work best. Standards evolve from the field and experts, usually standards are preceded by people already doing the job.


----------



## semiferger (Feb 23, 2010)

We are so lucky to have experts of the absolute to share their small nuggets of wisdom with us lesser mortals.How ridiculous of anyone to even consider that a dynamic cabling system could aid in the retention of specific limbs (and their attached live canopy) within the strucutre of an assessed tree.Heaven knows Europe is strewn with trussed up trees strangled by constricting masses of synthetic cabling like some obscene Gordian knot convention.How I dream of the absolute clarity of exposition "Thou shalt only install static cabling and bracing systems"...sadly it seems I shall be forever exiled from the monochrome universe trapped in the agony of my coloured purgatory world.


----------



## treeseer (Feb 23, 2010)

semiferger said:


> We are so lucky to have experts of the absolute to share their small nuggets of wisdom with us lesser mortals....Europe is strewn with trussed up trees strangled by constricting masses of synthetic cabling like some obscene Gordian knot convention.How I dream of the absolute clarity of exposition "Thou shalt only install static cabling and bracing systems"...sadly it seems I shall be forever exiled from the monochrome universe trapped in the agony of my coloured purgatory world.


Welcome semi--you are so right; this multichromaticity is so difficult to sort out; life would be so much nicer and neater and safe and secure if it were only black and white. Standards evolve from the field slowly and gradually. Because they are by their nature very conservative, they lag behind in practice. 

Some countries with dynamic (no pun) individuals involved may go overboard in adopting new technology, www.sherrilltree.com/.../German-Tree-Care-Standards-on-New-Cabling-Systems-Revised - while other countries, and individuals, resist change.

When intelligent people already doing the job do not venture out of their sandboxes and chill their emotions enough to take part in the evolution of the standards, the industry :looser: , needed change does not happen, and we are stuck with recommendations for lag bolts in soft wood, for instance, and dynamic systems only mentioned in passing, until next time around.

(Jon did not make the leap to take that personally, so I doubt he needs to be rescued with counterattacks. That was a blunder from down under, stirring spit into this thread. That spit does not belong here. Pugnacity oke: presides in the litterbox of Oz, where the Wizard's whims win out every time. But we are not Munchkins, and we don't need Toto to reveal that naked fraud. Pay no attention to that :censored: behind the curtain!)

Black and white seldom works, even the Monkees :monkey: finally discovered that we have to sort out Shades Of Gray 

by Barry Mann & Cynthia Weil
When the world and I were young, just yesterday,
Life was such a simple game, a child could play.
It was easy then to tell right from wrong,
Easy then to tell weak from strong,
When a man should stand and fight or just go along.
But today there is no day or night,
Today there is no dark or light,
Today there is no black or white, only shades of gray.
I remember when the answer seemed so clear,
We had never lived with doubt or tasted fear.
It was easy then to tell truth from lies,
Selling-out from compromise,
Who to love and who to hate, the foolish from the wise.
But today there is no day or night,
Today there is no dark or light,
Today there is no black or white, only shades of gray.


----------



## Ekka (Feb 23, 2010)

treeseer said:


> (Jon did not make the leap to take that personally, so I doubt he needs to be rescued with counterattacks. That was a blunder from down under, stirring spit into this thread. That spit does not belong here. Pugnacity oke: presides in the litterbox of Oz, where the Wizard's whims win out every time. But we are not Munchkins, and we don't need Toto to reveal that naked fraud. Pay no attention to that :censored: behind the curtain!)



Just cannot help yourself once again.

Counterattacks is pointing out your jestures is it? 

Spit is pointing out your insinuations is it?

Pugnacity is getting caught and the blunder is all yours, clear to other readers. 

The spit certainly does not belong, so leave Guy, you are like a scratched record stuck on the ISA ANSI chant.


----------



## treeseer (Feb 23, 2010)

OUOuch! Sticks and stones, best put em down all.

What was this thread about again?


----------



## Ekka (Feb 23, 2010)

treeseer said:


> OUOuch! Sticks and stones, best put em down all.
> 
> What was this thread about again?



It's about a guy who has a bunch of previously topped eucs to deal with. He's in a quandary about what to do and there's a whole bunch of options (for some people at least). He's supposed to present those options to the client who decides the course of action to take.... but some posters think that's inappropriate too.

Some posters then decide to call other posters names because they see things a little differently.

Some posters also decide certain options should be scrubbed as invalid due to their narrow perceptions.

Some posters practice backflips.

Some posters can only do what ISA and ANSI says and they call other posters LOSERS for not thinking like that.

*And some posters got node friggin idea. 
​*


----------



## treevet (Feb 23, 2010)

Ekka said:


> It's about a guy who has a bunch of previously topped eucs to deal with. He's in a quandary about what to do and there's a whole bunch of options



Yeah....I suppose doing the WRONG thing is always an option.

Especially if you do not know HOW to do the right thing :monkey:

And there is a good buck to be made if you just do SOMEthing.


----------



## treevet (Feb 23, 2010)

treeseer said:


> Welcome semi--you are so right; this multichromaticity is so difficult to sort out; life would be so much nicer and neater and safe and secure if it were only black and white. Standards evolve from the field slowly and gradually. Because they are by their nature very conservative, they lag behind in practice.
> 
> Some countries with dynamic (no pun) individuals involved may go overboard in adopting new technology, www.sherrilltree.com/.../German-Tree-Care-Standards-on-New-Cabling-Systems-Revised - while other countries, and individuals, resist change.
> 
> ...



It is just fascinating to me how you beeatch about personal attacks and going off topic to the detriment of a thread .....

Then you constantly make personal attacks and go off topics and filibuster with your lame song references. You a big Monkees fan are you TS?


----------



## treeseer (Feb 23, 2010)

well gosh if you're not amused then just ski[p it; why copy it?

i''ll be doing some inspections of dynamic systems this week; will post one and let you guys shred it apart faster than a squirrel on speed! It'll be a TreeSave system, attached in next post if it fits. 

Here is an old TCI piece on speccing cabling using ANSI--how's it look, Jon?

another from Germany on dynamic--barrels of snake oil those Germans are swilling, eh?

Then another on steel.


----------



## Ekka (Feb 23, 2010)

Dynamic cabling fall arrest .... there's many options.


----------



## jomoco (Feb 23, 2010)

So I watched Ekka's dynamic cabling vid, he admits there's no real structural defects in any of the trees to be cabled, but that installing the dynamic system is somehow justified for the customer's peace of mind?

Does your customer realise that the uncabled trees will put on more tension and compression wood now than the dynamic cabled trees will Ekka? Do you deny the truth of this?

And now that his cabled trees will be weaker than the uncabled trees, what will happen if one of the synthetic ropes fail, and it is exposed to the real force of the wind with weakened support?

Who is responsible for weakening those trees, for profit?

You're a great vid producer Ekka, I just disagree with your fundamental take on reaction wood ever being increased through artificial support.

The uncabled natural tree will always produce more tension and compression wood.

If there's no defect, there's no valid reason to cable it in terms of benefit to the tree. 

jomoco


----------



## Ekka (Feb 24, 2010)

The abundance of your ignorance is clearly demonstrated, thank you.


----------



## treevet (Feb 24, 2010)

Ekka said:


> The abundance of your ignorance is clearly demonstrated, thank you.



I cry ....FOUL...on personal attack on valid counterpoints.

Also what if the property ownership changes or the installer gets busy and forgets about where he has these systems strewn all over town. Looks like a sure stem girdling future for this tree (not so with static). There is no reason not to put in a static cable if there is a defect such a weak co dom here and the installation time after watching this, would probably be won by the static (esp w 2 guys). Wound inconsequential no matter the "poor compartmentalizer".


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 24, 2010)

jomoco said:


> It's a spot on analogy for even a beginning arborist mate.
> 
> Why do young potted nursery trees need to be staked after planting?
> 
> ...



Exactly why I asked if the juxtaposition was intentional. I suspected, and you have now shown, that you don't understand what a dynamic cabling system actually does. 

Taking your analogy of a sapling exposed to wind, removing the stake and ties early is vital to allowing the tree to adapt to its enviroment. I agree 100%.

Now lets discuss this in light of the OP. A number of (suggested at the time E.camaldulensis) have been topped and are in need of remedial pruning and/or removing. For those trees which are able to be saved but could, in the event of a failure, present a danger to people or property, I suggested the installation of dynamic cabling systems. 

Correct installation of a dynamic cabling system does not interfere with the natural movement of the tree so it encourages the developement of reaction wood. At the same time, it will catch a failed limb and prevent it from hitting the ground, or a person or a house or a car or a... you get the picture.

As to the issue of girdling, other than Treevets valid concern over systems left untouched for years due to installer or owner neglect, a correctly installed system has sufficient play to allow for this eventuality.

Of course if the sytem is incorrectly installed it will be as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike, or if you prefer, a static system in a creaky old softwood anchored with j-lags.


----------



## jomoco (Feb 24, 2010)

outofmytree said:


> Taking your analogy of a sapling exposed to wind, removing the stake and ties early is vital to allowing the tree to adapt to its enviroment. I agree 100%.
> 
> Now lets discuss this in light of the OP. A number of (suggested at the time E.camaldulensis) have been topped and are in need of remedial pruning and/or removing. For those trees which are able to be saved but could, in the event of a failure, present a danger to people or property, I suggested the installation of dynamic cabling systems.



And once again, an old school veteran like me, would logically conclude that the topped eucs all have real and tangible structural defects. And as I have done on dozens of topped eucs in the past, I choose the 3-5 most robust secondary leaders, and ring cable them together, with a steel through bolt system, far older in it's history of proven usefulness to arborists, than me, my father, and grandfather, who fought in WW1.

All 3-5 leaders, are only limited in their dynamic range of motion in one direction, outward, and even that limited outward motion in each leader is only true in it's relation to the others, in other words all 3-5 leaders can move outward as a whole together as one unit, triggering the production of tension and compression on the tree's trunk below.

If installed correctly, my quasi-static steel hardware ring cabling system needs no maintenance in the following years, branches can fall onto the ring and cables following storms, lay there rubbing their wood against my ancient system's steel for years until that deadwood is either sawn in half, or rots.

Defect, identified, the proper cabling system installed, the tree's happy, the customer's happy, and I have earned an honest and ethical day's pay mate.

jomoco


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 24, 2010)

Good post Jomoco and as I have said more than once, I am not suggesting that static systems do not have their place in arboriculture. 

Perhaps it is best to point out to the OP at this point that, if you ask 10 arborists for an opinion, you may often get 10 different opinions. Not all of them will be wrong and not all will be right.

Welcome to fight club.


----------



## jomoco (Feb 24, 2010)

outofmytree said:


> Good post Jomoco and as I have said more than once, I am not suggesting that static systems do not have their place in arboriculture.
> 
> Perhaps it is best to point out to the OP at this point that, if you ask 10 arborists for an opinion, you may often get 10 different opinions. Not all of them will be wrong and not all will be right.
> 
> Welcome to fight club.



Right on mate, we're all trying to keep learning.

And it may surprise you to learn that I am not totally against dynamic cabling systems per say, I am just toatally opposed to them in their current BS attachment design, and their BS synthetic embodiment.

Again, a precisely controlled, limited throw, dynamic cabling system, has been around for more than 50 years, but only used by linemen in the electric/telephone industry. They're called inline compression springs, they are made of galvinized steel, they are installed on the actual steel cables themselves, to maintain a uniform tautness in the systems wire cables.

And I'll bet you that some wily old clever arborist back in the 40's already used an inline compression spring in an all steel tree cabling scenario, and I salute him.

I have patents on steel cabling systems that produce electricity from the dynamic motions of trees swaying in the wind mate. I just don't delude myself into thinking I'm doing the poor tree any favors other than letting it live another day.

jomoco


----------



## treevet (Feb 24, 2010)

jomoco said:


> All 3-5 leaders, are only limited in their dynamic range of motion in one direction, outward, and even that limited outward motion in each leader is only true in it's relation to the others, in other words all 3-5 leaders can move outward as a whole together as one unit, triggering the production of tension and compression on the tree's trunk below.
> jomoco



As pointed out in this very insightful paragraph....the term "static" system is somewhat misleading and the tree is still afforded plenty of movement for aesthetics or whatever perceived other benefits. Just not allowed to exacerbate the defect.

Hey, so far as terminology, supports used to be called "flexible" bracing...cabling

and rigid bracing....rodding.


----------



## Ekka (Feb 24, 2010)

treevet said:


> I cry ....FOUL...on personal attack on valid counterpoints.



You cry a lot we all notice, hence why you already got this response previously. All points have been covered, over and over like a broken record, and also in this thread. 



treevet said:


> In summation, here's a pic for you.


----------



## Jon22 (Feb 24, 2010)

REMOVE THOSE TREES!
The iriversible damage was already done at the time of the first topping. Just by looking at a few pictures it is easly determined that these trees have serious defects in structure. They are a failure waiting to happen. The best thing to do is let the client know that no matter how much pruning you do it will never fix the structural damage that they let the hacks do many years ago.


----------



## treevet (Feb 24, 2010)

Ekka said:


> You cry a lot we all notice, hence why you already got this response previously. All points have been covered, over and over like a broken record, and also in this thread.



Personal attack again blubbergut. You ever get to the states?


----------



## jomoco (Feb 24, 2010)

Now don't you two guys go O D'ing on me now, this is still a good thread.

jomoco


----------



## ddhlakebound (Feb 24, 2010)

Jon22 said:


> REMOVE THOSE TREES!
> The iriversible damage was already done at the time of the first topping. Just by looking at a few pictures it is easly determined that these trees have serious defects in structure. They are a failure waiting to happen. The best thing to do is let the client know that no matter how much pruning you do it will never fix the structural damage that they let the hacks do many years ago.



Many wild trees are able to thrive and grow into old age even with serious defects created by nature, and no intervention from man. Trees are adaptable, and genetically coded to survive and overcome many of the problems man and nature create for them. It's not needed to fix the structural damage. What is needed is proper care for the tree above and below ground to allow it to create good new structure to support itself, while we manage what is being supported through pruning, cabling, & bracing. 

It's one thing to advise of elevated risk and ongoing incurred costs of care for a tree that's defective via man, nature, or genetics, and allow the owner of the tree in question to make a decision based on their willingness to accept that risk. But to make a LOUD, EXCLAMATORY STATEMENT! based on 2d pics of a tree you've never had your hands on is another entirely. 

Yes, topping is obviously bad and causes irreversible damage. Irreversible damage is not unmanageable damage in every case, or even most cases. But hey...if all you've got is a chainsaw, make sawdust. 

-------------------------------------------

I've been following this thread closely from the beginning fellas, and I'm appreciative of all the wisdom and insights offered here.


----------



## Ekka (Feb 24, 2010)

jomoco said:


> Now don't you two guys go O D'ing on me now, this is still a good thread.
> 
> jomoco



The comment that has OLD VET fired up was actually directed at you and you certainly haven't reacted the way he has. 

Hey Vet, I can always do something about physical appearances however it's a proven scientific fact that intelligence cannot really be improved upon, so life behind the 8-ball is something you'll have to get used to.


----------



## ddhlakebound (Feb 24, 2010)

Damn guys...

I'm a hard headed stubborn sum beech, but this is becoming agonizing. Has it occurred to any of you that there's value in what been said on both (or all six) sides of this argument, depending upon the situation and application?

You guys are some of the upper echelon of the arb world, hardened experienced PROS, but this is degenerating into a gradeschool playground.


----------



## jomoco (Feb 24, 2010)

I'm respectfully waiting for any proponents of the current dynamic cabling systems on the market today, to explain how supporting a tree with a material weaker than the tree, makes any common sense whatsoever from a safety or durability standpoint?

jomoco


----------



## tree MDS (Feb 24, 2010)

ddhlakebound said:


> Damn guys...
> 
> I'm a hard headed stubborn sum beech, but this is becoming agonizing. Has it occurred to any of you that there's value in what been said on both (or all six) sides of this argument, depending upon the situation and application?
> 
> You guys are some of the upper echelon of the arb world, hardened experienced PROS, but this is degenerating into a gradeschool playground.



Right on friend!

I get the feeling this is what jon22 was picking up on.


----------



## treevet (Feb 24, 2010)

I think one thing that has not been discussed in either current running threads with the dynamic cable system the subject of conjecture is (I think) the proponents advocating this system used for codoms are primarily recommending for codoms WITHOUT included bark.

In this defect there would be pinching and wounding within the included bark and often infection. There would also likely be cracking in the defect caused by the two codoms "pushing" each other apart. Not a good situation to allow the movement in the dynamic system.

But furthermore....quite often a crotch involved with a codom grows into an included bark situation so why not be a visionary and go static as maybe it will be needed later when the codoms become included and then the job will have to be REPAID for?






prior to splitting would this have been a candidate for a dynamic? I know not but this an exaggerated example. Just food for thought.


----------



## jefflovstrom (Feb 24, 2010)

treevet said:


> I think one thing that has not been discussed in either current running threads with the dynamic cable system the subject of conjecture is (I think) the proponents advocating this system used for codoms are primarily recommending for codoms WITHOUT included bark.
> 
> In this defect there would be pinching and wounding within the included bark and often infection. There would also likely be cracking in the defect caused by the two codoms "pushing" each other apart. Not a good situation to allow the movement in the dynamic system.
> 
> ...



Food for thought, Removal. Dynamic and static are not life savers.
Jeff


----------



## treevet (Feb 24, 2010)

jefflovstrom said:


> Food for thought, Removal. Dynamic and static are not life savers.
> Jeff



That tree was in the process of removal and just an example.

My guess is your boss calls the shots on what is retained.

Cabling IS a live saver. That tree caught a little earlier would have been saved....by me....with a couple of bolts and a static (it bothers me to even have to refer to this cable in these terms in comparison to the elastic one that has no use around here).


----------



## treeseer (Feb 24, 2010)

treevet said:


> But furthermore....quite often a crotch involved with a codom grows into an included bark situation ...


how often? Think about what would be involved for bark that is curling up into a ridge to change direction and curl down instead. Maybe, very gradually, over many years

And a fork with no included bark can still be strained by heavy ends, which cannot be reduced without costing too much in form or function. That is one scenario that has called for dynamic.


> prior to splitting would this have been a candidate ...



That crack could be braced right now; why not?


----------



## jefflovstrom (Feb 24, 2010)

treevet said:


> That tree was in the process of removal and just an example.
> 
> My guess is your boss calls the shots on what is retained.
> 
> Cabling IS a live saver. That tree caught a little earlier would have been saved....by me....with a couple of bolts and a static (it bothers me to even have to refer to this cable in these terms in comparison to the elastic one that has no use around here).



Your guess is wrong. I may see my Boss a few times a year.
Jeff


----------



## treevet (Feb 24, 2010)

treeseer said:


> That crack could be braced right now; why not?



I meant candidate for dynamic....not. Yes is should have been braced right NOW ....but never was and I discovered without anyone else noticing it near a playground and it in my wood pile right now.


----------



## treevet (Feb 24, 2010)

jefflovstrom said:


> Your guess is wrong. I may see my Boss a few times a year.
> Jeff



apologize for wrong assumption then


----------



## jefflovstrom (Feb 24, 2010)

treevet said:


> apologize for wrong assumption then



Ah, Its OK, Just following the thread. All is good!
Jeff


----------



## Ekka (Feb 25, 2010)

jomoco said:


> I'm respectfully waiting for any proponents of the current dynamic cabling systems on the market today, to explain how supporting a tree with a material weaker than the tree, makes any common sense whatsoever from a safety or durability standpoint?
> 
> jomoco



Because we are not supporting the tree. :monkey:

Does your lowering rope have to be stronger than the tree? :monkey::monkey:


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 28, 2010)

treevet said:


> Also what if the property ownership changes or the installer gets busy and forgets about where he has these systems strewn all over town. Looks like a sure stem girdling future for this tree (not so with static). There is no reason not to put in a static cable if there is a defect such a weak co dom here and the installation time after watching this, would probably be won by the static (esp w 2 guys). Wound inconsequential no matter the "poor compartmentalizer".



I would not use one persons demo video as a guide to speed of cable installation TV. I bet if someone new to static steel cable installation was to make a video it would look like 2 guys wading through treacle at 20 metres too. Arborists I know who have used both systems say the dynamic installation process is roughly twice as fast to install at the anchoring points but the climbing speed between those points is much of a muchness. Over here the material costs also favour dynamic systems again by a small but appreciable margin.

I have a question about the formation of reaction wood in multi-dom trees like the ones mentioned in the OP's. Your analogy with the two baseball bats made me think a little and I wondered why you only discussed "in and out" motion and not lateral motion too? 

Use this diagram if you will to illustrate where you feel a dynamic system would fail to do its job. May I ask we assume that such a system has been correctly installed which means there is no restriction of motion on the cabled stems under "normal" weather conditions and there is sufficient slack in the "girdling" loops to allow for growth between 2-3 yearly inspections.


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 28, 2010)

jomoco said:


> I'm respectfully waiting for any proponents of the current dynamic cabling systems on the market today, to explain how supporting a tree with a material weaker than the tree, makes any common sense whatsoever from a safety or durability standpoint?
> 
> jomoco



This would be a good question if indeed the tree was being supported in its day to day motion. But as the name (dynamic) suggests, this style of cabling, at least in the applications being discussed, is not intended to support the limb. It's primary purpose is to prevent the limb, in the event of failure, doing harm to someone or something. Perhaps this rough diagram may help.






Epicormic limbs on Eucalypts seem to break straight out from the main trunk and most commonly on the direct opposite side of the prevailing wind. So in Perth, the two limbs marked NE would be the most likely to fail. The choice of dynamic cable is governed by the mass of the branch but they range from 2tonne to 8 tonne so there is a solution for most Eucs with this sort of post topping growth.


----------



## treevet (Feb 28, 2010)

There are a lot of statements, related assumptions, musings, wonderings, etc. here in your 2 posts oomt. Could you isolate the questions so they can be addressed. I don't think the system designed by Wohn is applicable to your illustrations with apparent included bark even in his opinion.

One might wonder why challengers of this system are so adamant in their arguments.

The answer is I/we put in a lot of cable support systems. I usually accumulate a dozen or so so I can net a couple $grand and then go out and do them in one day. This happens maybe 6 times during the busy season. It is quite profitable.

People that install cables in accordance with ANSI standards do not want to have to bid against inferior systems (possibly because in their opinion... a. they are easier/faster and require less knowledge to install or b. "cost substantially less in materials") and have the homeowner not know they are comparing apples to oranges.

Kind of like showing up to bid a large pruning job and the guy you are bidding against is selling a roundover hatrack.


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 28, 2010)

Sure thing.

Lets take the OP's tree/s as a basis for discussion. Our client has epicormic regrowth on a _Eucalyptus camaldulensis_ that has no visual evidence of potential failure but is adjacent to some form of significant target. So there is the possibility of failure rather than a gaping crack like the picture you posted a little earlier.



> It's because exposure to wind causes dynamic movement and forces to be applied on the wood that it REACTS to by putting on more mass in the form of tension or compression wood.



I agreed with this post of Jomoco's. 



> Any time you shelter that tree by limiting the natural forces exerted on it, it becomes dependent on that support compared to an unsupported tree



And this one too.

I know _E.camaldulensis _very well. I have pruned or removed more of these trees than any other Eucalypt species and they have a well deserved reputation for dropping branches when under stress. A topped _E.camaldulensis _even more so. If our client insists on keeping the tree then the cabling system I suggested, similar to what is drawn above, allows the tree to do exactly what Jomoco said is so important. 


What I am asking you TV, is have I misunderstood the importance of allowing this tree to create reaction wood to support its own weight?

When you gave your analogy of the two baseball bats you seemed to address only motion in and out (or up and down if you prefer) and did not say anything about lateral motion. Is that because lateral motion in your opinion is not something we should be concerned about or did I misunderstand your explanation?

I had another question pop up whilst typing this. What do you personally do, or suggest should be done, when their is no visible defect but, as in the example given, there is a real possibility of failure over a significant target?


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 28, 2010)

treevet said:


> I don't think the system designed by Wohn is applicable to your illustrations with apparent included bark even in his opinion.





> 6. codoms/ multidoms:
> The system can be used to secure codoms / multidoms too and often enough was used in such cases. Therefore you have to connect every stem with its neighbour (e.g. as ring connection) and possibly crosswise with its vis-a-vis. Try to secure every load directions – that means back and forth as well as left and right.



I think this quote of Wohns shows quite clearly that he believes a dynamic system is in fact very well suited to this particular example. In fact he recommends the same ring connection method I drew above.


----------



## treevet (Feb 28, 2010)

outofmytree said:


> I think this quote of Wohns shows quite clearly that he believes a dynamic system is in fact very well suited to this particular example. In fact he recommends the same ring connection method I drew above.



The operative words here were "included bark" as illustrated by the v shape of the base of your illustrated codoms.  Don't think he wants to allow movement of these. Can't speak for him tho.


----------



## treevet (Feb 28, 2010)

outofmytree said:


> Sure thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 28, 2010)

Thanks for clear answers TV. See most Aussies are quite civilised and remember their manners!

So where the prevailing winds are SW as per my place, does the torque effect created on branches pointing NW and SE (at 90 degrees to the wind) produce reaction wood?

One other thing I wanted to ask and here seems as good a place as any. I have said a few times that we see the most epicormic failures to the NE here or opposite to the prevailing wind. Yet much of what I have read regarding wind created stresses suggests that it is the moment at which the wind drops and the branches return violently back to their original positons (and beyond) that produce the greatest strain on unions. So why doesnt the evidence match the theory?


----------



## Boa07 (Feb 28, 2010)

OOMT, when considering the forces created by violent distructive storms, concepts of prevailing wind direction are not all that useful. (Acknowledging that there can be other important factors in limb failure beyond wind speed and direction)

Destructive storms produce very very powerful downdrafts-microbursts together with powerful vortices which act to produce massive wind loading almost instantly (max wind gusts in the GAP storm Nov 12th 2008 were measured at 160-180km/h)

I have attached a schematic from the BOM to help clarify..

View attachment 127338


----------



## treevet (Feb 28, 2010)

No systems are meant or capable of withstanding those extreme forces. Good info Sean.

This 500 year old oak I am charged with the care of was hit with a violent downshear and crushed the house adjacent to it. All bets are off with cables at this point. 4 other codoms were split open by this and we were forced to reduce the entire tree to this secondary canopy.


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 28, 2010)

Boa07 said:


> OOMT, when considering the forces created by violent distructive storms, concepts of prevailing wind direction are not all that useful. (Acknowledging that there can be other important factors in limb failure beyond wind speed and direction)
> 
> Destructive storms produce very very powerful downdrafts-microbursts together with powerful vortices which act to produce massive wind loading almost instantly (max wind gusts in the GAP storm Nov 12th 2008 were measured at 160-180km/h)
> 
> ...



Thanks Boa. I did my apprenticeship in Port Hedland (category 1 building area) so the vortex affect of cyclones and the unpredictable nature of the wind speed and directions they produce is not new to me. Much as TV said, if that happens then all bets are off!

What I was asking regarding prevailing "normal" winds was, does the torque they apply to the main stem by applying pressure on branches at 90 degrees to the flow induce reaction wood? I have seen some interesting "butressing" develop on stems at ground level where the only force I could see at work was wind. Likewise I have seen interesting wood develop where the epicormic stems join the older wood and rather than vertical this reaction wood(?) is left and right....



> One other thing I wanted to ask and here seems as good a place as any. I have said a few times that we see the most epicormic failures to the NE here or opposite to the prevailing wind. Yet much of what I have read regarding wind created stresses suggests that it is the moment at which the wind drops and the branches return violently back to their original positons (and beyond) that produce the greatest strain on unions. So why doesnt the evidence match the theory?



Anyone have an idea why this is so? I have not documented or photographed these observations but of the 4 sets of photographs I do have of epicormic breaks on Eucs all were on the East and 3 were NE. I have considered that the damage is cumulative rather than the work of one violent wind gust and the failure when it comes is in the path of least resistance. That still doesnt explain why SW branches don't succumb as readily if as I have read, the greatest force is applied when the branch "relaxes" after wind load is applied.


----------



## treevet (Feb 28, 2010)

outofmytree said:


> I have seen some interesting "butressing" develop on stems at ground level where the only force I could see at work was wind. Likewise I have seen interesting wood develop where the epicormic stems join the older wood and rather than vertical this reaction wood(?) is left and right....



There is a phenomena called "Bottle butt" that I have brought into discussions in the past, that I used to have some photos of but since have been displaced in my file by other pictures at the limit of capacity.

"Bottle butt, or swelling at the base of an oak (picture in book). This is an indicator of decay in the base or butts of trees. In the absence of fruiting bodies, it is necessary to rely on other indicators of decay to determine if a tree has internal decay" Pg. 9, Wood Decay Fungi, Christopher J. Luley, Ph.D.

This apparently is reaction wood formed in response to the base of the tree being challenged by the structural void IMO (chronic).

I could go take a picture of one of the many local trees that have this affliction if anyone is interested.


----------



## outofmytree (Feb 28, 2010)

treevet said:


> There is a phenomena called "Bottle butt" that I have brought into discussions in the past, that I used to have some photos of but since have been displaced in my file by other pictures at the limit of capacity.
> 
> "Bottle butt, or swelling at the base of an oak (picture in book). This is an indicator of decay in the base or butts of trees. In the absence of fruiting bodies, it is necessary to rely on other indicators of decay to determine if a tree has internal decay" Pg. 9, Wood Decay Fungi, Christopher J. Luley, Ph.D.
> 
> ...



I would be very keen to see that reaction in Oaks as we have very few here. We have a number of trees here with similar responses and I have noted that it is most common on trees that have been topped. Perhaps a weakened specimen has a different response to a healthy one.

Swap you some _L.confertus _and _S.molle _photo's for your _Quercus spp._


----------



## treevet (Feb 28, 2010)

Deal on the trade Doc, but I do not think my example is an oak. Be back tomorrow as it is dark now and I would prob get shot or attacked by a dog.


----------



## treeseer (Mar 1, 2010)

Bottle butt is fairly circular and as tv said is a response to heart rot. Abnormal.

Buttress formation is centered around each buttress root. Normal.


----------



## Bermie (Mar 1, 2010)

treeseer said:


> Bottle butt is fairly circular and as tv said is a response to heart rot. Abnormal.
> 
> Buttress formation is centered around each buttress root. Normal.



:agree2:

...some large poincianas that have been thrashed around in storms seem to increase buttress wood in later years, you can see where the bark has changed as new wood is added, the same can be said for reaction wood on some of the long heavy branches...almost 'pinnochio noses' that would suggest internal stresses/cracks being compensated for. 

This is purely anecdotal...but if you think about it, a tree gets thrashed around for hours in a storm, something shifts internally, so now the stresses must be normalized, or attempted...hence reaction wood in relevant areas.


----------



## Corymbia (Mar 2, 2010)

treevet said:


> The answer is I/we put in a lot of cable support systems. I usually accumulate a dozen or so so I can net a couple $grand and then go out and do them in one day. This happens maybe 6 times during the busy season. It is quite profitable.



I am not sure that Profit is the basis of making objective decisions




> People that install cables in accordance with ANSI standards do not want to have to bid against inferior systems (possibly because in their opinion... a. they are easier/faster and require less knowledge to install or b. "cost substantially less in materials") and have the homeowner not know they are comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> Kind of like showing up to bid a large pruning job and the guy you are bidding against is selling a roundover hatrack.



No! More like showing up to a pruning job and only taking out the larger dead branches and then telling them that you will be back next year to do some more work on the tree. The assumption that this type of bracing is somehow inferior is like saying a helicopter is inferior to a plane ... they are not the same so a comparative value judgement is in error.

The problem in this entire discussion has been that both sides what to try and compare the two rather than assessing their comparative advantages independently. As is often the case there are two different sides to the coin and it is difficulty to see both sides at the same time without getting a little "cross eyed".


----------



## Boa07 (Mar 2, 2010)

Corymbia, I think that despite the vigour with which individuals present their opinions about specific issues relating to the different cabling options out there, in actual fact the majority of qualified experienced Arborists that post here are a lot less monochromatic in their view of trees and our management interventions than it might seem.

The extenet of cabling for mitigation of identified defects within the branch architecture of trees in Oz is very limited in comparison with the USA, and not simply because of the vast differences in population figures.

Whilst I do not share Dave's very negative view about dynamic cabling (and have installed and seen installed many such systems in trees in Europe and even in Queensland!) I recognise the years of experience he and others have in the application of steel cabling (and bracing) in a great variety of tree species with a vast array of assessed problems. 

It is sometimes worth the effort of wading past the rhetoric and personal irritations on these forums to find thought provoking comments on topics that are relevant to your own work.


----------



## Corymbia (Mar 2, 2010)

*Bracing the facts*

Sean, 

I wasn't suggesting anything but exactly that! We need to look at each bracing method individually and look at its benefits and disadvantages in the context of arboricultural science. There are braces out there that are the better part of 100 years old so it is not a new practice and I am sure that the ANSI standards are well considered as are the German standards. This does not mean that one has to be wrong, it simply means they are different.

That said we need to be clear about the underlying science and it seems that this can get lost if we are not careful. If you asked old timers about painting cuts they would have assured you that it was good based on years of experience and observation. No, I am not suggesting that experience has no basis in science but observation needs science to back it up with a theory or an explanation otherwise it can again become subjective tripe. 

To dismiss either bracing method outright is to assume that the other is a panacea and this mind set will certainly inhibit further development of bracing technology.


----------



## treevet (Mar 2, 2010)

Maybe flexible bracing is not in need of any further technology.

To make an analogy such as painting wounds to not painting wounds and compare it to galvanized steel cables (what does monochromatic even mean?) and elastic supports is a misjustice to science in and of itself.


----------



## treeseer (Mar 2, 2010)

Sean, :agree2: that it is sometimes worth the effort of wading past the rhetoric and personal irritations on these forums to find thought provoking comments on topics that are relevant to your own work.



treevet said:


> Maybe flexible bracing is not in need of any further technology. To make an analogy such as painting wounds to not painting wounds and compare it to galvanized steel cables (what does monochromatic even mean?) and elastic supports is a misjustice to science in and of itself.



And then again, sometimes the rhetoric is so far over the top, you Can't wade through it. 
How can I ffigure out what shouldn't be
When it's so deep, so deep,I can't get under it, so high I can't get over it
It's so wide I can't get around it... Nowhere to run to, baby, nowhere to hide
Nowhere to run to, baby, nowhere to hide, Martha and the V's, a colorful group.

mono = one, chromatic = colored. Not discerning, or exhibiting, any shades between black and white. However, "Rules are too absolute for Mother Nature". A.S.


----------



## treevet (Mar 2, 2010)

treeseer said:


> And then again, sometimes the rhetoric is so far over the top, you Can't wade through it.
> .



You are a part of it....a huge part of it.


----------



## Corymbia (Mar 2, 2010)

*Keep your pants on*



treevet said:


> and elastic supports is a misjustice to science in and of itself.



My trousers (by way of braces or suspenders), my socks and my underwear all stay up courtesy of science and not magic... sorry but elastic supports predate bracing in trees so there is no misjustice. Elasticity is a consideration of Material Science and these guys are boringly scientific

Don't get me wrong ... there is nothing like steel to rod up a split. 

Perhaps the best application of the newer flexible systems is for fall arrest of a large lateral limb on a angiosperm that has lost its top ... cable is useless there. And to keep it on topic the largest angiosperm in the world, a Eucalyptus regnans, has lost its top quite some time ago so it is a bit like a pollarded Eucalyptus.


----------



## jefflovstrom (Mar 2, 2010)

[QUOTE=Corymbia;2075986

Don't get me wrong ... there is nothing like steel to rod up a split. 



Oh yeah?, Base cut and stump grind !
Jeff


----------



## treevet (Mar 2, 2010)

Corymbia said:


> My trousers (by way of braces or suspenders), my socks and my underwear all stay up courtesy of science and not magic... sorry but elastic supports predate bracing in trees so there is no misjustice. Elasticity is a consideration of Material Science and these guys are boringly scientific
> 
> Don't get me wrong ... there is nothing like steel to rod up a split.
> 
> Perhaps the best application of the newer flexible systems is for fall arrest of a large lateral limb on a angiosperm that has lost its top ... cable is useless there. And to keep it on topic the largest angiosperm in the world, a Eucalyptus regnans, has lost its top quite some time ago so it is a bit like a pollarded Eucalyptus.



You misunderstood my expression of injustice. I meant the analogy of pruning paints and support systems for lack of scientific comparison.

Why not just string an old climbing line or if bigger an old rigging rope and guess on the amount of slack necessary.....tie a loose bolen on each end and presto....you have the same set up.

You could do the same with a fall arrest prevention. Tie an old tire tube somewhere in the middle if it makes you feel higher tech.


----------



## jefflovstrom (Mar 2, 2010)

Ha! thats a good one! Lets get a big rubber band and shoot a marble to the Moon!  
Jeff


----------



## treevet (Mar 2, 2010)

jefflovstrom said:


> Ha! thats a good one! Lets get a big rubber band and shoot a marble to the Moon!
> Jeff



better idea....let's shoot jefflovstrom to the moon.


----------



## jefflovstrom (Mar 2, 2010)

Seriuosly TV, how will I breathe up there?
Jeff


----------



## treevet (Mar 2, 2010)

jefflovstrom said:


> Seriuosly TV, how will I breathe up there?
> Jeff



I have no idea but take me with you....I am ready. Maybe we can plant some trees and start a tree service.


----------



## jefflovstrom (Mar 2, 2010)

TGIF! It feels like Friday.
Jeff


----------



## treeseer (Mar 2, 2010)

treevet said:


> You misunderstood my expression of injustice. I meant the analogy of pruning paints and support systems for lack of scientific comparison.


The analogy sucked even more AFTER the explanation.

Pruning paints are used for "disease, insect, mistletoe, or sprout control, or for cosmetic reasons." ANSI A300 -1, 5.4.1 Lots of good science supporting sealants, in particular circumstances.

Time to trade in that monochromatic filter, eh?


----------



## Corymbia (Mar 2, 2010)

treevet said:


> You misunderstood my expression of injustice. I meant the analogy of pruning paints and support systems for lack of scientific comparison.



Sorry

My analogy was not to the comparative sciences involved but to the problem of relying on observation without a scientific basis. People thought paint was good until proven otherwise ... then we stopped painting altogether and now we are back to asking when is it appropriate to paint and not to paint.

The same is true for the current discussion on bracing ...

We all know what rope can do and the affect of slack on loading ... we use it everyday when it comes to rigging down trees. Seems to me that the live oak being lowered to the ground and the live oak with a fall arrest system use the same physics and material science.


----------



## treevet (Mar 2, 2010)

treeseer said:


> The analogy sucked even more AFTER the explanation.
> 
> Pruning paints are used for "disease, insect, mistletoe, or sprout control, or for cosmetic reasons." ANSI A300 -1, 5.4.1 Lots of good science supporting sealants, in particular circumstances.
> 
> Time to trade in that monochromatic filter, eh?



that word doesn't fit no matter how hard you try.

5.4.1 is contradicted by 5.4.2 "wound treatments that are damaging to tree tissues SHALL not be used.

Very little "good science " supporting tree paint and PLENTY supporting not using it.


----------



## treevet (Mar 2, 2010)

Corymbia said:


> Sorry
> 
> My analogy was not to the comparative sciences involved but to the problem of relying on observation without a scientific basis. People thought paint was good until proven otherwise ... then we stopped painting altogether and now we are back to asking when is it appropriate to paint and not to paint.
> 
> ...



The same is NOT true for this discussion on bracing....science is observation and successful practice. Much of it in regards to steel cabling, none or little in regards to elastic bracing (relatively).


----------



## Corymbia (Mar 3, 2010)

treevet said:


> The same is NOT true for this discussion on bracing....science is observation and successful practice. Much of it in regards to steel cabling, none or little in regards to elastic bracing (relatively).



Observation does not = science it equals perception ... that is why people thought the world was flat. Quantifying observation (measure and test) adds to the validity of the observation. "Successful practice" is not scientific it is a qualitative judgement and again that is important but it is not scientific. As Shigo said "Until you have only one variable ... it is not an experiment"

You are right that there is far greater observation in relation to steel cabling but that is simply a fact of it being an older more adopted technology. So that is one of those meaningless observations. That argument is like the suggestion 100 years ago that cars are not suitable for transportation because most people use horse and carriage. No I am not saying you need to sell the horse ... it is a very eco friendly way to get to town but not so good to get across state in a hurry.

Remember I like steel and I love PLPs but again my preferences are not scientific either otherwise the whole world would live in my house and eat Thai whenever they could.


----------



## treevet (Mar 3, 2010)

Corymbia said:


> Observation does not = science it equals perception ... that is why people thought the world was flat. Quantifying observation (measure and test) adds to the validity of the observation. "Successful practice" is not scientific it is a qualitative judgement and again that is important but it is not scientific. As Shigo said "Until you have only one variable ... it is not an experiment"
> .



You make many statements as though they were fact which I have repeatedly disagreed with. This is another one of them.

"Science" (Webster's New World College Dictionary) "Systematized knowledge derived from OBSERVATION, STUDY, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principals of what is being studied."

The ONE variable here is "do they work or do they not work". Having installed well over 2,000 cables over my 40 plus career and not having one fail that I have been notified about or observed, I can rationally conclude....yes they are successful and yes they do conform to "the principals of what is being studied". 

Can you honestly do this with elastic cables? I have NEVER seen ONE installed in all the region I operate in since they appeared here 15 years ago so, no, I cannot make the same determination about these and likely neither can you.


----------



## treeseer (Mar 3, 2010)

treevet said:


> "Science" (Webster's New World College Dictionary) "Systematized knowledge derived from OBSERVATION, STUDY, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principals of what is being studied."


Dave, I agree with your main point, but n"and" means "and", not "or". Yes, you and I are practicing science when we observe and study, but the conclusions that we draw are not as solid as those based on controlled, formal experimentation.


> The ONE variable here is "do they work or do they not work". .


That may be one outcome, but it is not an experimental variable. Brian Kane and I chewed this over in Arborist News a couple years ago, reaching a good understanding I think:

"Science and Research

In The Importance of Science in Arboriculture (February 2006), Brian Kane described the usefulness of rigorous research using the Scientific Method, echoing a similar article by Robert Miller (April 2004). It’s hard to exclude enough variables from large living systems such as trees to produce valid results, so we in the field are grateful for good research. Dr. Kane has coauthored some very useful studies, such as the one on the strength of woundwood.

One facet of the article, however, was quite confusing. Wherever formal research was described, the more generic term “science” was used. The ISA motto “Science, Research, Preservation” makes it clear there is a distinct difference. As the high school science students that I tutor understand, research is only one aspect of science. “Science” includes observation, description, analysis, study, review and identification; functions that all human minds employ every day to gain knowledge. 

Textbooks, glossaries and dictionaries make it clear that research is not synonymous with science. It is very valuable but like other forms of science it is limited. Myths can be generated by overgeneralizing its results. Anecdotal experience may lack the protocols for publication, but like research it can shed enough light to advance arboriculture. If we had to wait for research to guide our every move, we could not function.

Arborists must be willing to plow through research articles and use the nuggets of information they find. But the writing must be clear enough to read! As Dr. Shigo wrote thirty years ago “By writing and talking in laboratory lingo and technical jargon, (researchers) surround themselves with a barbed-wire barrier of words that keeps their work from reaching the people who can use it”. 

The Scope of the arboriculture journal says, “…potential authors should bear the readership in mind.” They should also remember that no one group can claim a monopoly on knowledge or science. If everyone works harder at communicating, the barriers to better tree care will come down.

Guy Meilleur, BCMA
Apex NC

Brian wrote a good response; wish I had it as a doc.


----------



## treevet (Mar 3, 2010)

treeseer said:


> In The Importance of Science in Arboriculture (February 2006), Brian Kane described the usefulness of rigorous research using the Scientific Method, echoing a similar article by Robert Miller (April 2004). It’s hard to exclude enough variables from large living systems such as trees to produce valid results, so we in the field are grateful for good research. Dr. Kane has coauthored some very useful studies, such as the one on the strength of woundwood.



"Limitations of science increases as the number of variables increase. In mathematics and physics the variables can be easily controlled, so science works best there. When we move from chemistry to biology, the number of variables affecting living things increases greatly. ......The natural tree system is much bigger than the sum of its parts. The point is that science alone will not give us all the answers we need to help trees." A New Tree Biology, Shigo, 1986. 

Sounds similar doesn't it?



> “Science” includes observation, description, analysis, study, review and identification; functions that all human minds employ every day to gain knowledge.



"Science is knowing. Art is doing. Art implies skill. Helping trees is art as well as science. Art is doing the many tasks that are necessary to help trees grow and to help trees when they are in trouble. Art takes practice.

Art and science still leave the subject incomplete. There is still more. The remaining ingredient is COMMON SENSE, the rarest ingredient in the world today.

Common sense is the innate ability to know what is best, or what is right, or how to do a task the best way or to make the best decision. Common sense grows from experience and attention given to a subject or any living or nonliving thing. Common sense is a built in survival system. Common sense grows in a person as they send signals out, receive them back-feedback mechanism- and then rapidly make any correction or adjustment that is needed.....

Helping trees depends greatly on common sense. The only way to get common sense about trees is to give them your attention, touch them and watch them grow, wane and die. And watch them do better after you have done something for them.

Common sense is also similar to what I call constructive philosophy; thinking in a way that results in a worthwhile answer or practical application and solution to a question or problem. Constructive philosophy can result in doing something that will help rather than hurt a person, animal, or a tree. Common sense and constructive philosophy are entwined.

Why all this discussion on science, art and common sense? Because the person who works with trees must have some of all of these ingredients."

This quote is also from "A New Tree Biology"



Another quote I find relevant to this discussion is...

"Science is of no value if it does not change something for the better, even if the change is a better understanding of some process, and the new knowledge makes you feel better." Shigo

(or a little wealthier...Treevet quote)


----------



## Corymbia (Mar 3, 2010)

*What am I missing - other than a brain and personality?*



treevet said:


> You make many statements as though they were fact which I have repeatedly disagreed with. This is another one of them.
> 
> "Science" (Webster's New World College Dictionary) "Systematized knowledge derived from OBSERVATION, STUDY, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principals of what is being studied." .



That is the pot calling the kettle black. Because you disagree with something it is not fact ... no chance that you may be wrong? 

"And" is a conjunction which means all 3 (observation, study and experimentation) are included in obtaining systematised knowledge. According to Websters observation is only a part of the process of deriving systematized knowledge that *leads* to but is not in itself "science". So I see that you disagree with me and Websters ... I bow to you as the authority. This demonstrates the point that we (both you and I) can perceive things differently therefore perception (non quantified observation) cannot be absolute in its conclusions.

Perhaps, for example, the reason that you don't see braces fail is that you overprescribe, bracing trees that has only minor defects that the tree would normally deal with by itself or using heavier cable than needed. (I am not saying you do or would but rather I am simply pointing out why observation is unreliable). 



> Can you honestly do this with elastic cables? I have NEVER seen ONE installed in all the region I operate in since they appeared here 15 years ago so, no, I cannot make the same determination about these and likely neither can you.



With sincerity, I bow to your extensive use of bracing ... I have only done perhaps 200. I have seen properly installed cable braces fail in storm events.

You state that you have no experience with dynamic bracing and therefore assume as a result that these are not effective. Maybe you have no experience with a scanning electron microscope but that does not mean they don't work. Passing opinion on something you have no experience with is a tad more ignorant than me talking about bracing with my limited experience when compared with yours ... and interestingly we both agree that there is a place for good quality cable bracing. 

Yes, I have used dynamic bracing and specified its use and I have not as yet seen a failure so based on my observations it works ... but clearly that proves nothing

I am hoping I have misunderstood but it appears that you do not believe that dynamic bracing works or is inappropriate because you have never seen it used or working ... That argument is devoid of logic or any scientific substance and is certainly not like you, so I am guessing that something has been lost in the process.


----------



## treevet (Mar 3, 2010)

I have given comprehensive descriptions in this thread and the cabling thread as to my problems with this system and haven't the inclination to :deadhorse: If you want to know why I object to this system....try reading the entire thread/s.

If your goal is to win some battle of attrition then as you can see it is not likely. This system can not possibly be adjusted so it does not allow just the right amount of movement (to develop your highly desired reaction wood) nor can it in the other direction be adjusted so it does not hit into the end of it's elasticity causing tissue compression.

Furthermore one proponent advocated removing the system entirely when a sufficient quantity of reaction was harvested  and when I confronted him with the question....you mean you plan to remove the system on trees you found a need to install them in....no answer was ever returned. What is your opinion on this subject?

Common sense is all that is necessary to recognize that....that and a lot of experience installing a system that does neither ....allow enough movement to allow the defect to become more profound....nor does it allow injury to tissue after the initial installation.


----------



## Corymbia (Mar 3, 2010)

*A lengthy response*



treevet said:


> If your goal is to win some battle of attrition then as you can see it is not likely. .



There is no battle and attrition is a poor way to proceed if there were. Intellectual discourse, questioning and seeking answers is an appropriate source of learning. Because I use and recomend this system, I want understand that I am getting things right and not making drastic mistakes.



> This system can not possibly be adjusted so it does not allow just the right amount of movement (to develop your highly desired reaction wood) nor can it in the other direction be adjusted so it does not hit into the end of it's elasticity causing tissue compression.



Excuse me being lost ... I am not sure why the system cannot be adjusted or removed in the unlikely event that the tree has reacted appropriately and or the target below has changed. Can it be adjusted precisely ... no of course not but does that make the system invalid? ... I don't think so. I am not sure that you or I can quantify the "right amount of movement" but some movement is better than none. 

Perhaps another bracing application that demonstrates the point well is guying. If a tree is guyed too rigidly it will not develop appropriate caliper and will always need support. How much movement is enough? As much as it wants may not be appropriate as the stem may want to bend over

Unfortunately a braced horizontal limb with a loaded cable has no stimuli to produce tension wood or prop tissue (thigmomorphogenesis will not occur). It is no different if it is braced or propped and you are right in this situation the branch is dependant on the system for ever. As a result of the limb "sensing" that it has adequate support it is more prone to elongate. As the tree grows it may then need additional bracing. 

I find it odd that a practicing arborist finds it difficult to understand the benefit of dynamic systems given our constant use of ropes that have varying dynamic properties. Before braided rope there was 3 strand ... so bouncy but that did not make it fail. Then there was rock climbing rope ... static was easy to climb but take a fall or use it for rigging with a lowering device and you wished you had dynamic rope. Dynamic rope was great except when you had a 200 foot length you were trying to body thrust.

Yes you have 2,000 braces but I would have supported 100 times that number of branches using rope (and you have probably done 5 times more than me again) as a part of tree removal. We already have a fair idea how much a limb will deflect when loaded (with a climber) or when partial failure occurs (cutting part the way through with a chainsaw)

In fact here is a great example. 

We have a horizontal branch that we are concerned about. So we tie in, we set the dynamic brace up on the trunk so that we maintain the appropriate angles and ratios and then we come down and limb walk to the point of attachment. 

I know that you are still agile but I am a little heavy footed now days so I would probably be loading the limb by 50 pounds or more. The limb drops 18 inches by the time I get to the brace point. The limb is fine, it doesn't break and I brace it with "Cobra" whilst I am sitting on it. I tighten the brace firmly. When I move back to the stem the brace appears to have a little slack. 

Is the limb likely to reach breaking point as a result of a vertical load? I guess it may be possible but not very likely since the brace limits deflection. Years of lowering branches tells us that it is unlikely.

Can the limb be stimulated by various downward loads? Yes because the limb gets little to no support when it is unloaded! So now we have reaction wood being developed. We have a limb that is getting stronger ... Hmmm 

During heavy loading will there be damage to the cambium ... perhaps but remember the brace is not supporting the weight of the limb but rather it is assisting in carrying any additional load since the branch itself continues to take the initial mass of the limb plus the extra 50 pounds. Lets assume smow and that the load gets to 500 pounds at the point of the brace. Given the surface area of the system the brace will be applying a lot less pressure than we get from a lot of every day rigging situations. 

Observation is not enough! Do we exceed 860kPa. Sorry to go metric but it easier when doing maths. Assume a 2.5cm wide system applying a force over a length of 100mm (roughly 2 inches by 4 inches). 1 / (0.025 x 0.1) x 500 = 200kpa. We can conclude scientifically that generalised cell rupture will not occur.

What mistakes have I made? I know that there were a lot of assumptions in the above example and these assumptions exist because we are not talking about a real example so I apologise for that and ask for leniency in the pain you are about to inflict:greenchainsaw:


----------



## treevet (Mar 3, 2010)

You know at first I was suspicious that you were Ekka using another name but after a while I have decided you are not and applaud you for your persistence and attempts at staying with facts for the most part.

I think I am going to get out of this thread but first I have a couple of questions you might address for me and perhaps others.....

1. What is it that you think this system does BETTER (keeping mind Shigo's quote) than the galvanized steel system?

2. There has been a number of vague references to "limitations" of use of this system by some posters and the inventor. What are they.

3. What do you see as the limitations of the steel system if any?

4. We have violent storms in our area. Would you, in good conscience recommend use of this system in such an area. Last year we had a hurricane with 70 mph sustained winds for about 5 or 6 hours. Shortly before we had a massive ice storm which loaded the trees with massive amounts of weight and they broke up all over town. Would you protect a house with your system. Would you be confident that conductive tissue, and maybe even storage tissue would not be compromised in this environment with a wrap around support.

5. Why do we not see evidence of dissections of trees with your system that have been involved with extreme stressing outside of the elasticity to the point of being in a static state? You would sell a lot more if you did not just use assumptions.

I have actually done scientific experiments WITH Dr. Alex Shigo in seminars in Boone SC (with just 24 other students and everyone had their own microscopes) where we injured trees and dissected them to study the 4 walls of compartmentalization.

You and Treeseer keep referring to my inaccurate reference to science by just mentioning "observation". What I said was observation along with many successful installations of attempting to prevent failure of codoms. That is as scientific as the above mentioned Shigo experiments is it not?


----------



## jefflovstrom (Mar 3, 2010)

Only the strong survive?!
Jeff


----------



## Ekka (Mar 4, 2010)

Hot off the press


----------



## EdenT (Mar 4, 2010)

*HA HA HA (forced laugh)*

The writing style of 100 monkeys with 100 typewriters but only 10 minutes to spare. Must be Tool Time at TW.
:spam:

PS. The biggest joke about this is you comparing the cabling debate to the untold misery and suffering caused by the war in Iraq. You need to get some perspective! Seriously!


----------



## treevet (Mar 4, 2010)

I know something else that is hot when it comes out (LOL) :fart:


----------



## outofmytree (Mar 9, 2010)

treevet said:


> You know at first I was suspicious that you were Ekka using another name but after a while I have decided you are not and applaud you for your persistence and attempts at staying with facts for the most part.
> 
> I think I am going to get out of this thread but first I have a couple of questions you might address for me and perhaps others.....
> 
> ...



Wow, take a week off and look how much reading I have to do.

Let me have a crack at your questions TV.

1. It allows the branch its natural movement thus allowing the creation of reaction wood.

2. In circumstances where constant pressure will be applied by the system. IE where you have a pre existing break in a codom. IMO that is a job for rod bracing and a static system.

3. Overkill for SOME applications. For example the trees originally discussed in the OP or Seans snare sytem. In both cases there is no evident failure but rather the possibility of failure. 

4. I have no experience whatsover in weather conditions that you work in. I think that question would be better answered by someone from the colder countries in Europe.

5. Cracking good idea. Of course you would need a tree failure with a dynamic system installed first! Humour aside it would be great if such a pm could be performed to assess what, if any, long term damage was created by pressure on the bark where such a system was correctly installed. 

In short then. IMO, where in Treevets words, you need a system in place that says stop(!) then steel static is the right choice. If, on the other hand, the tree needs to move in order to strengthen itself by the development of reaction wood then dynamic it is.


----------



## outofmytree (Mar 9, 2010)

treevet said:


> There is a phenomena called "Bottle butt" that I have brought into discussions in the past, that I used to have some photos of but since have been displaced in my file by other pictures at the limit of capacity.
> 
> "Bottle butt, or swelling at the base of an oak (picture in book). This is an indicator of decay in the base or butts of trees. In the absence of fruiting bodies, it is necessary to rely on other indicators of decay to determine if a tree has internal decay" Pg. 9, Wood Decay Fungi, Christopher J. Luley, Ph.D.
> 
> ...



Sorry about the delay, I have been a little busy.

This is a _C.ficifolia_ with some interesting abnormalities. 











And this is a _L.confertus _with its own problems.











And just to give you an idea as to how common this occurence in street trees is....






I took these photographs in 1 street in North Perth over a distance of about 500metres. As many as 10% of all street trees in the surrounding suburbs are affected and the vast majority of those are _L.confertus_. On the other hand, I would say less than 1% of trees which are not topped show the same reaction. I have long suspected that these growths, whatever their direct cause, are strongly influenced by the stress of losing up to 100% of canopy every 2-3 years.

Not much to do with cabling _E.camaldulensis _I know but still a cool topic!


----------



## Ekka (Mar 10, 2010)

lignotubers


----------



## Corymbia (Mar 10, 2010)

Ekka said:


> lignotubers



Not so sure if that is the correct title but is quite common in _Lophostemon confertus_ and can get even more pronounced ... it is definitely not something to worry about.

I would really like to dig one up and dissect it just to have a look .


----------



## Ekka (Mar 11, 2010)

See around here we rarely see that, I mean if you said to me "take me to see some brushbox" I could easy, but if you said "take me to see some brushbox with basal bowls" I'd be a littel stuffed. 

So something going on elsewhere that is not going on here. Well not as prevalent anyway.


----------



## outofmytree (Mar 11, 2010)

These are street trees so I will not be felling one to dissect any time soon but I am curious as to exactly what that wood will look like from the inside.

The _L.confertus_ pictured are topped every 2-3 years, have no root protection and get parked on regularly. Add that to having poor soil to grow in and less rainfall than they are used to and it is no surpise they go a little weird I guess. Should have picked lignotuber straight away though. :blush:


----------



## Corymbia (Mar 11, 2010)

*Words get so confusing*



outofmytree said:


> These are street trees so I will not be felling one to dissect any time soon but I am curious as to exactly what that wood will look like from the inside.
> 
> The _L.confertus_ pictured are topped every 2-3 years, have no root protection and get parked on regularly. Add that to having poor soil to grow in and less rainfall than they are used to and it is no surprise they go a little weird I guess. Should have picked lignotuber straight away though. :blush:



Without having dug one up the word "caudex" comes to mind (because it is occurring in part above ground and may or may not be occurring in the roots). I am not sure that there is a significant difference between this and a lignotuber. Perhaps others can elucidate!


----------



## Ekka (Mar 12, 2010)

Same thing


----------



## Corymbia (Mar 12, 2010)

Ekka said:


> Same thing



I think in this case you are right. I know that the Caudex can occur in different places so those that involve roots and root flairs are probably the same as lignotubers. If I understand correctly they usually have lots of buds there which is not always true of caudiciform plants.

Found this great picture when I did a search for "burl lignotuber". Looks like these things may make a monkey out of me yet.:monkey:


----------



## EdenT (Mar 12, 2010)

*Not quite the same*

From what I read a lignotuber always has adventitious buds. A caudex is a modified (swollen) stem that extends somewhat above and somewhat below ground but consists of undifferentiated cells. A carrot is caudicform and though it can re-sprout it can only do so from the top where there are differentiated cells capable of becoming stem/leaf/apical tip. A lignotuber on the other hand can sprout from any bud anywhere on it's surface.

In the case of OOMT's _C. ficifolia_ it is definitely a lignotuber because in the second picture you can see a sprout coming off it. Can't say definitively for the _L. confertus_ without a closer inspection. 

Thanks to all for raising the question.


----------



## jefflovstrom (Mar 12, 2010)

:greenchainsaw:You are welcome!
Jeff


----------



## outofmytree (Mar 13, 2010)

EdenT said:


> From what I read a lignotuber always has adventitious buds. A caudex is a modified (swollen) stem that extends somewhat above and somewhat below ground but consists of undifferentiated cells. A carrot is caudicform and though it can re-sprout it can only do so from the top where there are differentiated cells capable of becoming stem/leaf/apical tip. A lignotuber on the other hand can sprout from any bud anywhere on it's surface.
> 
> In the case of OOMT's _C. ficifolia_ it is *definitely a lignotuber because in the second picture you can see a sprout coming off it*. Can't say definitively for the _L. confertus_ without a closer inspection.
> 
> Thanks to all for raising the question.



Lol. That was a leaf and stem I laid on the base to give scale for the photograph. It does kinda look like its sprouting though!


----------



## EdenT (Mar 13, 2010)

ROFL! No fair!! I reckon it's still a safe bet though being a Corymbia (the genus not the person).


----------

