Need some input from the Pro's. I did an estimate today for a women that wanted me to grind out,or trim, all of the above ground roots from this maple tree in her yard. I told her it may kill the tree.She said "I don't care! My question is,can I trim these roots and seal them with something? What do I do guys? Any input is greatly appretiated.
Questions on root grinding
- Thread starter tommyo
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
begleytree
H. sapiens moderatus
You can remove all the above ground roots with no ill effects to the tree, provided you remove the tree from the stump first. otherwise, no. How about a mulch job?
-Ralph
-Ralph
Last edited:
Stumper
One Man Band
Tommy, As Begley is intimating, it is a really bad idea. It is possible to remove a surface root or two without killing a tree- Of course it DOES injure it and MAY result in unforseen problems. However, if you remove many large roots you not only risk killing the tree but also destabilizing it to the point it falls over and kills someone or breaks things. I explain that and politely refuse to engage in those types of malpractice.
Mulch, talk her into a few inches of mulch. The tree will always have surface roots unless you cover them. So to keep her from shaving the roots next time she mows fill it in with 2"-3" of mulch. Elsewise your going to end up making mulch out of the tree by cutting the roots off. Sell her on mulching around the tree, then every year or two you come back and mulch around the tree again. The roots stay or the tree dies. Feed the tree some mulch or make mulch out of the tree.
Ekka
Addicted to ArboristSite
If she doesn't care that the tree dies etc, get her to sign a bullet proof disclaimer saying you advised the contrary and the repercussions yet she decided to proceed, grind the roots, get your money, and who knows she may ring you later for a removal.
At the end of the day it is her tree and her responsibility.
At the end of the day it is her tree and her responsibility.
ROLLACOSTA
Addicted to ArboristSite
Ekka said:
I agree with that
Pruning is pruning
I agree with the others, but I sometimes prune roots. Trees need both branches and roots. we prune branches all the time, but consider roots as untouchable. Why?
this is not a good time of year to prune very many though. If you post a picture or two we may be able to talk about a compromise that will satisfy the owner's "needs" and the tree's.
planting liriope-type groundcover between exposed roots often works well.
grinding is often worse than cutting.
I agree with the others, but I sometimes prune roots. Trees need both branches and roots. we prune branches all the time, but consider roots as untouchable. Why?
this is not a good time of year to prune very many though. If you post a picture or two we may be able to talk about a compromise that will satisfy the owner's "needs" and the tree's.
planting liriope-type groundcover between exposed roots often works well.
grinding is often worse than cutting.
Tree Machine
Addicted to ArboristSite
Question on root damaging, injuring
Many times problems in the crown start with problems in the roots. If there's a decent chance you can set the tree into a long, slow, progressive degenerative condition, think for a moment what's in it for you; a paycheck, and the satisfaction of a job well-done.
Cave into her shallow whim and you've simply prostituted yourself. Might as well top her tree as long as you're at it, maybe cut off some giant limbs on the lower trunk to get her the benefit of more light down there.
There are more lucrative ways to put food on your family's table than intentionally harming the foundation of a tree.
At the end of the day, you have to determine whether or not you did the right thing.Ekka said:
Many times problems in the crown start with problems in the roots. If there's a decent chance you can set the tree into a long, slow, progressive degenerative condition, think for a moment what's in it for you; a paycheck, and the satisfaction of a job well-done.
Cave into her shallow whim and you've simply prostituted yourself. Might as well top her tree as long as you're at it, maybe cut off some giant limbs on the lower trunk to get her the benefit of more light down there.
There are more lucrative ways to put food on your family's table than intentionally harming the foundation of a tree.
rubberducky
ArboristSite Operative
That is the right thing if she complies.
Tree Machine
Addicted to ArboristSite
Oh....? So supposing she moves next year and the new owner gets the privledge of a compromised tree? All because it inconveniences her mowing, or maybe she stubbed her toe,or she just doesn't like the looks of it. Catering to whiners. We all have to step up to that plate eventually.
There are alternatives. I just think we should open clients to other possibilities. The results could be better, and even more profitable. We just want everyone to win here.
There are alternatives. I just think we should open clients to other possibilities. The results could be better, and even more profitable. We just want everyone to win here.
Ekka
Addicted to ArboristSite
Yes, you are right, there are better alternatives but the customer is not interested in them, and you have wasted your time, effort and breath on this one who just gets somebody else to do it.
In other trades there are regulations and enforcement ... we have none. So, IMO we wouldn't be doing anything illegal, and perhaps it will take a few more failures (man induced) to wake up these politicians and regulators to do something about it.
In a years time if she moves out and the new owner doesn't know what has been done and the tree fails ... insurance will cover it, if somebody is injured and an inquiry proceeds the original owner will be the culprit, and if she's no longer around (deceased) then what?
Wont win against the tree company because they have their disclaimer.
Might as well sue the govt for not prohibiting the exercise, they are the negligent party, the contractor has gone the extra lengths out of his goodwill and knowledge to inform the customer of their ignorance ... something most other contractors wouldn't even know about let alone do.
It's a huge kettle of fish, but being a good guy with high morals and ethics is costing you and not your ignorant competitors. I'm in the same boat, sometimes I walk away, sometimes I don't ... but as time passes the more I wonder why rules don't change and the more I realize there are no rules.
In other trades there are regulations and enforcement ... we have none. So, IMO we wouldn't be doing anything illegal, and perhaps it will take a few more failures (man induced) to wake up these politicians and regulators to do something about it.
In a years time if she moves out and the new owner doesn't know what has been done and the tree fails ... insurance will cover it, if somebody is injured and an inquiry proceeds the original owner will be the culprit, and if she's no longer around (deceased) then what?
Wont win against the tree company because they have their disclaimer.
Might as well sue the govt for not prohibiting the exercise, they are the negligent party, the contractor has gone the extra lengths out of his goodwill and knowledge to inform the customer of their ignorance ... something most other contractors wouldn't even know about let alone do.
It's a huge kettle of fish, but being a good guy with high morals and ethics is costing you and not your ignorant competitors. I'm in the same boat, sometimes I walk away, sometimes I don't ... but as time passes the more I wonder why rules don't change and the more I realize there are no rules.
there are better alternatives but the customer is not interested in them,
* So our challenge is to get them interested.
In other trades there are regulations and enforcement ... we have none. So, IMO we wouldn't be doing anything illegal,
* Yes regs would be way messy in the tree trade, which has so many variable.
Wont win against the tree company because they have their disclaimer.
* I wouldn't lean on that one too hard. Tree Contractors have been held liable for unprofessional practices in cases here, and their ins co's have paid.
No rules, just right. But defining what is right, that's the challenge. Some prune roots, others say it is always bad. I think it's key to gather enough scientific support to try methods that go against the flow of current dogma, like using sealants, pruning roots, making heading cuts, treating fungus etc. Pushing the envelope hard enough to make things happen but not so hard as to rip it, tricky bizness.
So Ekka how's diagnosis school going? What did your prof say about those rotting eucs?
* So our challenge is to get them interested.
In other trades there are regulations and enforcement ... we have none. So, IMO we wouldn't be doing anything illegal,
* Yes regs would be way messy in the tree trade, which has so many variable.
Wont win against the tree company because they have their disclaimer.
* I wouldn't lean on that one too hard. Tree Contractors have been held liable for unprofessional practices in cases here, and their ins co's have paid.
No rules, just right. But defining what is right, that's the challenge. Some prune roots, others say it is always bad. I think it's key to gather enough scientific support to try methods that go against the flow of current dogma, like using sealants, pruning roots, making heading cuts, treating fungus etc. Pushing the envelope hard enough to make things happen but not so hard as to rip it, tricky bizness.
So Ekka how's diagnosis school going? What did your prof say about those rotting eucs?
The quotes came in a pm but I'll go public with it.
"I remember hearing that topped trees actually loose roots, that they die back as the crown is removed. Assuming this to be true, why?"
The answer is partly hormonal. Auxin produced in the buds stimulates root growth, so if all the buds are cut off, roots don't grow. Similarly, root tips produce cytokinin, which stimulates buds to grow. It's a little-understood but a neat kind of chemical balance. :angel:
"is it because the tree uses up the resources in the root system attempting to recover, and as such uses them up to the point they die back? or is the first premise incorrect, thus making the question moot?"
The answer is also partly a resource/stored energy issue, true.
"I agree that some root pruning is OK, no large buttress roots, and no grinder because it would shake more roots loose from the soil than what you are actually pruning,"
I didn't think of that, makes sense.
"but I decline to advocate root pruning on a public discussion board that many (less-informed) homeowners read. A little info in the wrong hands can be dangerous, IMO."
Don't you advocate branch pruning? What's the dif? I maintain that roots and branches are necessary parts of trees and should be conserved as a general policy. But some of these parts are routinely shed, so it's unnatural to try to conserve every little bit.
Like in government, too much conservatism and too little activism pulls the tree biz away from reality and into chaos. :alien: We should give a little more credit to the readers and take a lesson from trees, and advocate a healthy balance, right?
"I remember hearing that topped trees actually loose roots, that they die back as the crown is removed. Assuming this to be true, why?"
The answer is partly hormonal. Auxin produced in the buds stimulates root growth, so if all the buds are cut off, roots don't grow. Similarly, root tips produce cytokinin, which stimulates buds to grow. It's a little-understood but a neat kind of chemical balance. :angel:
"is it because the tree uses up the resources in the root system attempting to recover, and as such uses them up to the point they die back? or is the first premise incorrect, thus making the question moot?"
The answer is also partly a resource/stored energy issue, true.
"I agree that some root pruning is OK, no large buttress roots, and no grinder because it would shake more roots loose from the soil than what you are actually pruning,"
I didn't think of that, makes sense.
"but I decline to advocate root pruning on a public discussion board that many (less-informed) homeowners read. A little info in the wrong hands can be dangerous, IMO."
Don't you advocate branch pruning? What's the dif? I maintain that roots and branches are necessary parts of trees and should be conserved as a general policy. But some of these parts are routinely shed, so it's unnatural to try to conserve every little bit.
Like in government, too much conservatism and too little activism pulls the tree biz away from reality and into chaos. :alien: We should give a little more credit to the readers and take a lesson from trees, and advocate a healthy balance, right?
Last edited by a moderator:
Ekka
Addicted to ArboristSite
Treeseer you have very good points and yes, you are correct.
I also heard that the roots of stressed trees may abandon their micorrhizal association with the extremely benificial fungi. This in turn could reduce the roots efficiency by up to 66%. As the tree is stressed it no longer wants to share it's resouces (sugars & carbons).
So, what a very interesting thread this has become because what started out as a simple "lets grind the roots" has ended up in this depth. And this only further illustrates the importance of having knowledgable, qualified, up to date people in the industry ... because the ignorant shmuck who hired that stump grinder because the contractor wont do it has just ground off all the roots and topped the tree to balance the work!
See my point.
I also heard that the roots of stressed trees may abandon their micorrhizal association with the extremely benificial fungi. This in turn could reduce the roots efficiency by up to 66%. As the tree is stressed it no longer wants to share it's resouces (sugars & carbons).
So, what a very interesting thread this has become because what started out as a simple "lets grind the roots" has ended up in this depth. And this only further illustrates the importance of having knowledgable, qualified, up to date people in the industry ... because the ignorant shmuck who hired that stump grinder because the contractor wont do it has just ground off all the roots and topped the tree to balance the work!
See my point.
Thank you all for the great feed back! I called the woman back and sold her on the stump & dead root removal,top soil & grass seed."Will not touch the live roots" Less money,but now I will be able to sleep at night! Thanx again All.
Ekka, your point is way dull and turned out to be stinking thinking; your prediction did not come true. Tommy did the right thing by the tree, the owner, and himself. Thank goodness there was not a bureaucrat there to mandate specs; the situation would not be resolved til doomsday.Ekka said:
Ekka
Addicted to ArboristSite
treeseer said:
It was not a prediction but an option, a tactic in the event of the customer being adamant that they'd grind down the surface roots.
The red herring was the availability of not only competitors to carry out the work but customers to do it themselves.
In this instance the customer took the advice of Tommy.
So, having this stinking thinking may actually come useful and earn you some money when dealing with customers who wont change their minds or push them hard into considering the repercussions when they sign the disclaimer.
Either that or walk away.
begleytree
H. sapiens moderatus
treeseer said:
Yes Guy, I do advocate branch pruning, and look where it takes us: to topping and pollarding. Do you really want to advocate root pruning, seeing the far end it can be taken to? And yes, I'm talking worst case, but there are a lot of examples of 'worst case pruning' around the country, right?
I agree that most surface roots would be smaller and not actually involved in support of the tree, but they are there for a reason, like soil compaction, and I believe that simply removing said surface roots would still harm the tree without correcting why they were put there in the first place. Maybe time for a vert. mulch job, but I can't see the tree from here :angel:
-Ralph
Hey dude, where's your cover?begleytree said:
I think pollarding is good pruning, if maintained. Let's not overreact here. Clipping a few surface roots may not do greater harm than clipping a few branches, but it sounds like tommy found the best approach--keep the saw in the truck, educate and advocate for the tree. Now he's got the best source of future work there is--a satisfied customer who knows that he cares for trees.
Stumper
One Man Band
Guy, As you know-the BIG difference in root pruning compared to branch pruning is the inability to see the entire root system. Can you imagine pruning branches based soley on their diameter and distance from the trunk while not seeing any other branches?
Similar threads
