pruning practices

[Kneejerk Bombas]

murphy4trees,
I pray to all that is holy, that all that BS about how nice it is to raise trees was a case of you trying to be sarcastic!!!
As I read it, I became physically ill! I found it to be the worst words ever typed onto these boards, ever! You sicken me! As I read the words, I realized they were typed by either someone who hates trees, or is just plain sadistic.
Do you also spike up to these offensive lower limbs, and flush cut them off too? Then do you run a mechanical compactor over the root zone?
Ahhrrrg...!

Don't read this quote unless you are trying to induce vomiting:

As far as elevating trees... JPS referred to this as "raise"...
I think it is very often a good practice.. It serves a number of purposes...few people realize how important proper air circulation is to the well being of the household and landscape and how much better the air will move when you put 10-15' between the roof (etc) and the tree.. I learned that lesson camping in August. Elevating also allows rays of light that make their way through the upper canopy to the ground.. often times two or three cuts can increase many times, the light available to turf and undergrowth. And often removing lower branches opens up lines of sight into the trunk and branch structure that are very impressive, while eliminating that overbearing sense these branches can create. All of these benefits are available by just mimicking the natural process of trees shedding their lower branches.. especially when the shoulder starts bulging.. it's clear the tree is getting ready to shed the branch. If the tree is vigorous and the cut isn't too big and doesn't violate the trunk or branch collar, it should seal.

 

[Stumper]

Very subtle Mike. I'm somewhere in the middle on this I guess. 20' to the first limb on a 45' tree is ridiculous (and unfortunately fairly common around here) on the other hand a mature tree which I can't walk under without ducking is ridiculous as well (I make an exception for Spruce and Junipers). Tip lightening and thinning of lower branches can make an enormous difference in light levels and, consequently, health of other plants in the landscape. Such pruning CAN make the difference in retaining or removing a tree. Trees that overhang roadways need to be pruned to provide clearance.(It doesn't help to say the should have been planted elsewhere 40 years and 6 owners ago) .
A modicum of moderation gentlemen.
There is no shame in doing what needs to be done or even in simply making a customer happy provided neither tree nor customer is being placed at high risk.

 

[Tom Dunlap]

Point by point

As far as elevating trees... JPS referred to this as "raise"... I think it is very often a good practice.

*Like Shigo says, it's all related to "Dose". You have to abide by proportion. Taking off too much of the food factory can be deadly. Be careful of blanket statements. Elevating with no benefit ot the plant OR the client approaches unethical behavior. I have many clients who want limbs cut off to allow light in but don't realize that the neighbor's trees are the ones shading their yard and their trees shade the next house, etc. Why feed the chipper just to feed your pocket book

It serves a number of purposes...few people realize how important proper air circulation is to the well being of the household and landscape and how much better the air will move when you put 10-15' between the roof (etc.) and the tree.

*Are you sure this makes a big difference? I think that we can all agree that keeping branches from touching structures is a good plan. I prune for a three to five year cycle not 10-15'. Study how smoke moves with the air. It doesn't take much of a change to allow good circulation.

Elevating also allows rays of light that make their way through the upper canopy to the ground.. often times two or three cuts can increase many times, the light available to turf and undergrowth.

*Are we taking care of turf or trees? If the turf is thin, so what, mulch it. Take care of the tree. Harming the tree to benefit turf approaches sacrilege in my book. We rail on about wrong tree, wrong place when wires are considered. Why not wrong plant, wrong place when we consider turf. Mulch everything, we'd be better off, I believe. By following this crown thinning have you considered the stress to the tree? The tree has taken years to grow into the being it is today. How do we know the effect of this thinning?

And often removing lower branches opens up lines of sight into the trunk and branch structure that are very impressive, while eliminating that overbearing sense these branches can create.

*The Japanese used to bind women's feet. The Mayan used to bind babies heads to boards to flatten them. All to make them more attractive. What damage might have been done? Are trees trees or sculptures? Any carver will tell you to remove all of the stone, wood, etc. that doesn't look like an elephant and you'll have a carving of an elephant. Is this what we should be doing to trees? I don't think so. If clients want to see the trunk structure, walk up and look close. "Overbearing"? I find people overbearing not trees.

All of these benefits are available by just mimicking the natural process of trees shedding their lower branches.

*WHAT?!?!?! You've got to be kidding! When did a tree pick up a chain saw to shed a limb? The whole process of senescence takes a long time, not in the instant it takes with a saw. Shedding and wounding are two completely separate operations. Think of the difference between storm damage and pruning. How do we know which of the lower limbs are going to be shed? Can you tell which is the most vigorous?

. especially when the shoulder starts bulging.. it's clear the tree is getting ready to shed the branch.

*So...any time the "shoulder", do you mean the branch collar?, is visible, the tree is "ready to shed the branch"? If so, every ash tree in Minnesota would be a toothpick. Or do you mean "getting ready" in the lifetime readiness?

If the tree is vigorous

*How do you know if the tree is vigorous? Starch tests? Twig elongation? Chromatic comparisons? What is "normal"?

and the cut isn't too big

*What standards do you use?

and doesn't violate the trunk or branch collar, it should seal...

*"should"? What happens if the target is missed or some of your parameters aren't met? Then pruning becomes damage.

So much for my Saturday ranting!

Tom

(just the carage returnsjps)

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

What I refer to as "raise and gut" is the removal of most of the inner canopy with no attention to growth on the branch ends. The anyone can do this, non tree person aproach to taking money from the public.

One major problem with raising a tree is that 60% of the canopy is in the lowe 30% of the crown. i don't know how many times I have been able to meet the homeowners needs by walking a low limb and doing some reduction work instead of making a "proper collar cut"

Here is a nicely rased tree I did around 9 years ago. Perfect collar cut, final cut on the upstroke.

looks sorta nice from a distance

http://home.wi.rr.com/sanbornstrees/norwaymaple trunkjpg.jpg http://home.wi.rr.com/sanbornstrees/norway maple trunck2.jpg

(links for Brians slow connection )

But on closer examination, we can see the sunken bark and poor wound closure due to my removing these large low limbs all at once. They were "codominant" in the sence that they grew from the tree at the same time as the terminal bud. No tru collar, and the branch pith will join with the trunk pith.

Lack of a collar means there is no hydraulic reduction in the union, so the tree does not need to maintain a lot of conductive tissue around the union. Even with natural target pruning I still had significant cambial dieback on the bottom of the wound and very slow wound closure.

I'm lucky that the wounds did not coaless and form a canker.

It is even worse because this tree is right outside my bedroom window

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

In case you missed this relate thread, about raising a honey locust, have a look:

http://207.44.158.62/~admin4/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2595


The absolute minimum a tree worker should know is to not top, raise, gut, or spike a tree they are trimming, unnecesssarily.

 

[Stumper]

Key word: unnecessarily. Definition-depends upon who you are talking to.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

I have nothing against raising the canopy, as long as it is done gradualy and the woulds are small in comparison to to the trunk.

On samll trees, which the above mentioned locust is, then it may be a good thing to get them off early incase they are "codom" in the sence that Gilman speaks, they originate with the leader and will never have a branch collar at the union. Subordination and schedualed removal after several years can reduce the chance of major trunk defects later in life.

The there is planning of the landscape, if these branches become heavy limbs and will interfear with the landscape in a decade or so, then the arborist should plan with the owner to eventualy remove them. The temporary limb school of thought, maintain in a subordinate state so they can feed the immidiate trunk, then remove when there is sufficient canopy and caliper growth to support the trunk and root system under it.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

JPS:
"I have nothing against raising the canopy"

That's because you are not a tree!
If you were, would you want those limbs removed? Would you like the sun beating down on your roots? Would you enjoy the hot, dry soil? Does compaction from the traffic, on this now hot, dry soil, do anything to help soil microorginisms?
All you seem to care about is a trunk defect.

You might find it interesting that some arborist think the roots are the most important parts of a healthy tree. Lower branches protect the roots and soil.

Why do evergreens get to keep their lower limbs, and all others must have them amputated?

I would rather have a tree worker accidentally top my tree than raise it. A topping can be repaired.

Do you like the ugly lollipop looking sticks that the nurseries sell as trees?

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Stumper,
In your post regarding raising trees, you forgot to mention anything about the health of the tree you are raising.
I am aware that trees need to be mutilated to fit into our ideas of a landscape, but do not confuse this mutilation with proper tree care.
Jps like to raise trees. He lives in a city. All trees in the city must be raised(except conifers?). He would raise a six foot tree, seven feet, if he could figure out how.
Gad, I hope you don't routinely raise trees. Your comment about getting poked by a limb on a mature tree worries me. Simply remove the grass, add compost the area, and be carefull when you walk under it.
Just because a tree care practice, wether it's topping, raising, or whatever, doesn't kill a tree outright in the near future, does not make it ok.

 

[Stumper]

Mike, I did mention tree health (albeit obliquely). I said that there is no shame in making a customer happy provided neither they nor the tree are being placed at high risk.

Tree health is a very real concern for me. For that reason I frequently persuade customers to have a different operation performed than the one they originally requested. Sometimes I even refuse a job which I consider harmful and unprofessional. However, my service to trees is based upon service to people. If a person(s) chooses to extract a tree from its natural environment and plant it in their yard for their enjoyment then I feel completely sanguine about manipulating the tree's growth patttern for its owner's increased enjoyment through JUDICIOUS pruning. If we plan for 6'-8' of clearance under the mature tree while it is still immature we don't have to whack off large limbs later. If we work the tips on an already mature tree we can usually persuade the customer not to whack off the the lowest major limbs.
You are entitled to your opinion but your arguments are very one-sided and seem detached from the natural order of things (trees serve people).

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Now if Stihl would put it on the ms200... but the guys at the conventions have said no.

Well I gotta be able to walk under'm! Sheesh.

As I have said before, we are highly specialized property maintinance specialists. We are paid by people to maintain their trees which are their property. If doing what they want is not possible in the good health of that tree, I will not do it. If I can over time find a solution to their problem, or maybe redefine the problem for them, I will.

I do not believe that every tree should have branches 4 feet from the ground, but I also don't think every tree should have branches starting at 20ft.

Do i like the stock comming from the nurseries? No they have very poor structure, I dont see raised whips. I see hacked tops intended to make the tree more bushy.

One of the reasons I advocate gradual reduction prior to removal is that there is a big change to the system in limb removal, the system needs to adapt to this change. Be less reliant on the production of the subsystem that will be removed.

On the other side of the argument, I would rather leave a lionstail in some situations then make a large wound on a trunk. This is usualy in a structural clearance situation, where you have to take a lot away from a limb that may have been stripped out far by previouse work, be it hack or home owner. Also as previously mentione by another member, using a heading cut which may or may not result in adventicouse growth.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Originally posted by Stumper

You are entitled to your opinion but your arguments are very one-sided and seem detached from the natural order of things (trees serve people).

BINGO! You have hit on my major point! Trees serve people, but arborists serve trees!
If you don't care <I>about </I>trees, you can't properly care <I>for</I> trees.

Originally posted by JPS

Well I gotta be able to walk under'm!

Again, you missed my point, we don't want anyone walking under them, or mowing, or parking, or anything.

Crown raising should be thought of like crown topping, there are times to do it, but not routinely.

 

[Treeman14]

Welcome to the real world, Mike

Come on, get real. These trees are not in the forest anymore. They are in front yards, back yards, next to driveways, roads, garages, homes, pools, sheds, playgrounds. Do you really expect people to just let the limbs grow to the ground? Let's stop mowing the grass, too. It is definitely not natural to top all those poor little blades. I could go on, but I might offend you. I'll be waiting to hear that loud "POP",















...when you finally pull your head out of your a$$ and take a good look around.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Treeman 14,
Can you explain why conifers don't need their lower limbs removed?
Don't forget, they grow "next to driveways, roads, garages, homes, pools, sheds, playgrounds" too!

In my defense, my head is not in my a$$. I am simply saying that limbs should not be removed because they are low. I'm sure the trees I care for look better than the "strip 'em up and gut 'em out" trees you seem to be advocating.
You would think I was bringing a new tree care idea up to this group...sad...

 

[treeclimber165]

Originally posted by treeclimber165
I'm finding myself using two totally different pruning approaches depending on the customer. About 60% do not like or want trees, and hire a tree company to reduce the amount of shade/cover/leaves they have to deal with. I don't bother with extensive tip work on these trees because no one will appreciate it and I will be criticized for wasting time. I've fought long and hard to convince these people otherwise and have NEVER succeeded. The trick is to identify this type of client early and perform the work as a partial removal. Any other effort will be wasted.

The other 40% truly like their trees. They may not know much, but are willing to listen to your advice and information. They appreciate your skill and knowledge when you artfully prune a tree to reduce risk, deadwood and future defects. They enjoy saving hundreds of dollars a year on their power bill because the trees protect their house from the heat and elements. For these type of clients I will go the extra mile to do whatever is in the best interest of the TREE. I truly love working in these type of trees.

Mike,
This is from earlier in this thread. Most of us think your approach is ideal, but we do not live in an ideal world. I wish I was in that perfect little world in which you reside, but I deal with REAL people.

 

[Stumper]

Mike, I think there are 2 primary reasons that many people do not feel compelled to remove lower limbs on Spruce and Junipers. ( I didn't simply say conifers since most pines do not retain low limbs)
1. These species grow so thickly that the interior form is not easily discerned and they are given a role as a solid object in the landscape.

2.The lateral spread in proportion to height is less on these trees so allocating a block of landscape to them exclusively is more acceptable to most people. ("There is room in the yard to walk around the spruce. If we can't walk under the oak there is nowhere to walk!")

Having said that - many people do raise there Spruce and Junipers in order to see the trunk and utilize the space under the tree.

There is a noteworthy difference between talking to a post and talking to Mike. While neither is inclined to move at all, The post is unlikely to argue.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

I like trees with full low canopies and I like trees with no limbs to 40 ft.

I've seen many a spruce in a front yard that has been raised. I've done it myself on occasion. As with other trees, I advocate it be done in a slow prosess. Remove only a few whorls a year.

I live and work in a city, but I do a lot of work in the contry too. Very often I have to deal with people who want to make a line of site (LOS)way off into the distance. Be able to see the neighbors horse paddock, or a lake. I try not to strip a side off way high up, but find the primary viewing site and open LOS from there.

Even box elder or (insert your favorite weed tree here) I try to move away form the weed tree issue and see how long is it planned to be in the landscape. What is the purpose of the plant to the owner. Is it an eveentual removeal, when a more desirable plant will grow in?

Which leads me back to my idea of the spectrum of good tree people. The McBubbas dont have a space here. On one end you have the tree advocate, who has a hypocratic oath dealing with all trees are sacred, on the other you have the maintinance man who does what his client wants within the bounds of scientific application, no topping, spiking oe generic raise&gut.

I find myself somewhere in the middle. There are people I work for, and respect. Those on the left can seem a little whacky in their resolve, those on the right may be going along with the client because they don't want to take the time to convert.

Soemtimes you have to take the big wood.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Finally a feeble attempt at explaining why conifers don't need raising. If you have ever seen a tree with lower limbs you will notice that in most cases the lower limbs are stunted and don't spread out as much as the upper branches. so the space arguement stinks.
I worked for years at a full service tree care company. It was a good gig. Excellent pay and benifits. The only problem was the salesman had the same attitude as the three or four of you who have told me I am wrong.
He sold removing the bottom five or six limbs on virtually every tree I trimmed. In addition, he often sold removing all small "suckers" in the center of the tree. If a crown was slightly uneven at the bottom, he would sell removing whatever it took to even it out. All trees needed some raising. Some times it was 30 feet to the first limb and I still had to go up and raise it. For example, he felt the first limbs should be large, so if there were 5 or 6 small limbs below the first main crotch, they had to come off.
The trees did look good to the untrained eye, balenced, formal, and plenty of air movement in and under.
I fought with the salesman over this over trimming and he insisted that that's what the customer wanted. In the end, I left a good job working with good people, because I knew this wasn't proper prunning. Like those of you who disagree that this is over pruning, he thought it was good work. After all, the customer was happy and we got paid.
My new employer sells almost the same type of residental and light comercial work, only there is almost no gratuitous crown raising and never gutting. I do maybe one or two raises in a full week of trimming compared the 25 or 30 that I used to have to do. The overall quality of my trimming is so much better, along with the long term health of the trees.
Now, can you understand how I know it's not a fantasy world I'm speaking about? I have done it both ways and I know what I'm talking about. The only difference in the two types of work is the knowledge and skill of the salesman and climber.
I fully understand that some trees have to be raised, but only about 5% of those that are raised. I also understand that it's hard to change an attitude that one has had for years, change is hard. All I'm asking is that you think about it and never cut another lower limb again for the rest of your life.
Shigo says, "Touch trees". How can you touch them if the first branch is 20 feet in the air?

 

[Stumper]

Mike , the way you came across to begin with it seemed that pruning a lower branch was a "never, never,no-no". Now it appears that your gripe is in always doing it whether a 'reason' exists or not. Don't throw up but....I'm on your side!

I have to ask . If lower branches are short and stunted as you say then shouldn't we expect to cut them off soon (after they starve out and die a death of protracted agony of course)?

I'll bet that I remove more lower limbs than you do Mike but I don't do it without reason and I don't remove large limbs very often.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Originally posted by Stumper
I have to ask . If lower branches are short and stunted as you say then shouldn't we expect to cut them off soon (after they starve out and die a death of protracted agony of course)?

Let's consider this tree:

A tree with lower limbs, wow!


Notice the lower limbs. You can't buy a tree like this from a tree farm, so you don't see many like it. This is a rare open grown tree. Never had a lower limb cut, ever. Yet it continues to thrive.
Doesn't take up much more room than a coniferous tree of equal size. It's shape is a result of auxin, a hormone that comes from apical meristems and moves downward, and it's buildup inhibits growth of lower limbs. This is the flaw in the idea of removing limbs now vs. later. Left naturally, they are stunted and once shaded out they will slowly die and shed on their own. This way the tree has plenty of time to set up those CODIT barriers Shigo speaks of, and branch bark protection zones Gilman talks about.
You ask, should the lower limbs be cut off once they die?
I would say the longer they were left on, the better. My rule of thumb is to wait until the bark is loose. If you follow the threads at the ISA website you will better understand the benifits of leaving a dead limb.
Look at the tree again. Where would you raise it to if it were growing in your front yard?