Trimming 38 Bradford pair trees

[darkstar]

I have been asked to [prune] 38 Bradford pair trees. These trees line the entrance way to a large subdivision and several of the trees, allthough not that old, have already began to split apart. In my opinion the owners of the trees should either replace them all, or top the trees.I know topping is terrible for other trees ,but i think the bradford pair trees top well and grow back nicely .Most of the Bradford's that have been topped around here seem to live well for many years . The owners of the trees want to preserve the trees as long as possible ,and are against removal. Any suggestions or opinions ?

 

[Husky288XP]

Maybe a pruning for structure with reductions and thinning some, since Bradford Callery Pear can get pretty bushy. But, DO NOT TOP them.

 

[rebelman]

Thin and clean the canopy. Take some major leaders out, maybe some reduction cuts. Don't top them. Bradfords seem to have extended collars sometimes, so very small stubs are often needed. If done regularly, this proper pruning should slow upward growth, allowing the tree to put on diameter instead of height. I am not a CA, but have trimmed literally hundreds of these trees in Tennessee, with good success.

 

[Dadatwins]

Most of the ones I have worked on usually need to be reduced by a third as they get mature. 7-10 years. Training them for structure from planting is very time and money consuming so most folks leave them until they become a problem. They grow so fast that a 1/3 pruning would probably get another few years and need it again. If removal and replant not viable option, I suggest lop off top 1/3 keep round shape and tree will lollipop out in the spring. Might lose some flowers if you do it now, as the buds are already there, but given the choice of the tree falling apart might be only option.
Good luck.

 

[kf_tree]

we commonly reduce these by 1/3, they are very common here in the NE. if done correctly these come out looking very nice. if there on the small side just jump up in them and pop all the tops, then the rest can be done from the ground with a pole clip.

 

[darkstar]

Bradford Pair

I totally agree with a 1/3 reduction ,complete topping. I think canopy reduction on bradford pair is impossible to do correctly as the hybrid is subject to breaking down and no limb can be judged stronger. The bradford pair does come back very well from complete heading cuts . The ones ive seen maintained by topping have far out lived the ones where only certain limbs have been removed or reduced.
We had this same discussion here recently but i though since this job came up id open it back up . Dark

 

[darkstar]

Here is the other discussion

http://www.arboristsite.com/showthread.php?t=20336&highlight=bradford+pair

 

[skwerl]

Just an FYI- the fruit is called a pear. A pair is two (a pair of shoes). Hope this helps.

 

[darkstar]

thanx

Pear ,sorry.

 

[rebelman]

I now this is a tough subject. Topping them off requires less skill and time. Thinning and cleaning to ANSI standard results in a year round beautiful tree. After the chainsaw work leaves a dimpled canopy, pole saw work throughout the center of the tree results in a finished product you can show with pride. one third is removed, but in a far different technique and far different result. As with most other trees, proper pruning is extra difficult after the top job. The split ones will fill in quickly. Hope your mind isn't made up Dark. Good post.

 

[M.D. Vaden]

Depending on where they were, and how bad, I don't know if I'd rule out topping.

Dirr, in his book, says that those are genetically prone to "self destruction".

That's very concise from what I've seen.

In Portland, Oregon, about 10 years ago, on SE San Rafael Blvd. about 70 % of the flowering pear trees along that entire boulevard were either busted off 1/2 or very disfigured.

All the correction was topping cuts really, Very few laterals to come back to.

It may be that topping might be right on a few of the trees or some of the cuts.

But I don't think it would be reasonable if any of the cuts would exceed 2" to 3" in diameter.

It's really hard to say without seeing them. But topping just does so little good. Professionally, maybe it's best to skip topping, let their trees get "creamed" by the weather, and come in with at the end with a remedy on your terms.

 

[treeseer]

Depending on where they were, and how bad, I don't know if I'd rule out topping.
Dirr, in his book, says that those are genetically prone to "self destruction".
...
All the correction was topping cuts really, Very few laterals to come back to.
It may be that topping might be right on a few of the trees or some of the cuts.
But I don't think it would be reasonable if any of the cuts would exceed 2" to 3" in diameter... topping just does so little good.

Heading cuts to small laterals can be proper pruning--see ANSI A300 4.2.0 and 5.5.6. Let's make this perfectly clear--all heading cuts are not "topping"(internodal and arbitrary) cuts!!

Reducing to laterals that are too small to be dominant is often justified in callery pear. O and I disagree with Dirr--Bradfords are defective not because of their genes, but due to a lack of early thinning cuts in the nursery. I have seen some wide-angled, well-structured Bradfords that got good training early on.

 

[darkstar]

Bp

I looked over the set of pear trees and overall there are so many ,many weak branch unions by the time i got through reducing weight on these trees they would bascially be removed . Or they might look severly lion tailed. Im thinking overall topping where the limbs are about 2 inches in dia. There are several Bradfords just down the road that have been maintened by topping and the trees still look good and have not fallen apart .

 

[topnotchtree]

I think you should top them as you think they should be topped. It sounds to me like you think these trees should be topped but you are looking here for someone to give you the ok. I think topping the trees would be the best thing to do to make everybody happy. Use your best judgement and everything will be fine. Might want to look at the shortest tree to get an even height to work with first. Just as long as the owner of the trees knows they might not look the best at first, but will improve as they fill out.

 

[kennertree]

topping

Dark, I wouldnt top them if i were you. One good reason is if a potential customer sees the job and and the potential customer knows topping is bad, they are going to assume you're a hack. Just make some reduction cuts keep them thin and try to avoid lions tailing.

 

[Dadatwins]

I looked over the set of pear trees and overall there are so many ,many weak branch unions by the time i got through reducing weight on these trees they would bascially be removed . Or they might look severly lion tailed. Im thinking overall topping where the limbs are about 2 inches in dia. There are several Bradfords just down the road that have been maintened by topping and the trees still look good and have not fallen apart .

Call it reduction so everyone won't get their panties in an uproar. There is a difference. Cutting the upright back a third to another lower upright can be proper pruning if it is done correctly. And on certain species it SHOULD be done if the idea is to keep the tree. Bradford, callery pear perfect example.
I credit ISA and others for getting the anti-topping message out but with these trees I believe we are talking about 1/3 reduction and not extreme topping.

 

[topnotchtree]

Thanks Dad, I was beginning to wonder how everyone here defines "topping". Whacking the tops of trees out and leaving stubs may be what people here think of as "topping". Reduction cuts to sufficient laterals on these types of trees is perfectly acceptable, IMHO.

 

[M.D. Vaden]

Heading cuts to small laterals can be proper pruning--see ANSI A300 4.2.0 and 5.5.6. Let's make this perfectly clear--all heading cuts are not "topping"(internodal and arbitrary) cuts!!

Reducing to laterals that are too small to be dominant is often justified in callery pear. O and I disagree with Dirr--Bradfords are defective not because of their genes, but due to a lack of early thinning cuts in the nursery. I have seen some wide-angled, well-structured Bradfords that got good training early on.

There are not grand structures and training that gets around how brittle they are. The wood of those trees is prime for large scale damage in icy areas.

But it's true too, from what I've seen, that if you can train them right and young enough, they can be 10 times better than many of the ones that just peel apart at weak unions.

 

[clearance]

Just walk by them with a big saw (288, 395 etc>) held as high as you can over your head and let er rip.