The <i>heal and seal</i> discussion is a nagging proof that we still get animal and tree mechanics and biologies all mixed up. It is a shame that we got started from a rhyming perspective, but there's no real apeal to stretching it out.
<i>My point is that neither term is technically good enough to change to the other.</i>, mutters the Massed one. How about just closure? Closure for the wounds created by a saw, or wounds that include a loss of bark?
We also have the illusion that when wounds close over, everything is OK.
That is sometimes, perhaps most times true, but closure also hides many significant dangers and hazards, that we choose not to recognize. We turn a surprising number of trees into hazard trees and never look back.
------------
As I remember, the disagreements between Neeley and Shigo were about wound closure times for flush cuts and Shigo cuts. This morphed into whether or not dressings speeded closure. It seemed that dressings didn't make any difference, which I expected in reading the studies because the mechanics ot the wound closing have literally no relationship to what film or goop is laid on the exposed wood to be covered.
My argument for years has been. it's stupid to stop exploring useful alternatives for trees because, and let's sing it in chorus, "Experts have determined...blah, blah, blah."
Experts determined nothing. They used a variety of contemporary goops labelled tree balm, or baum balm, and compared them to each other in a test of something completely irrelevant.
What we got was a misunderstood, prolonged apathy about helping trees with decay. Mostly because <u>that stuff</u>, back then when cars had big fins, was determined by a few studies not to have much effect, we stopped looking at anything for pruning cuts.
Fungal invasions are a big time problem for trees, trees have many techniques and mechanisms for thwarting the easy entry and passage of pathogens. But,we come along 200 million years later, give or take a few millenia, and saw every cylinder into an open cross section of hundreds of thousands of soda straws that lead down into the interior.
We leave that series of subway entrances alone, unguarded, unplugged, and talk awkwardly about the dilemma at bars and forums beause the background noise behind the howl of chainsaws is, "Experts have advised us...".
We happily left wound dressings because they were messy and difficult to wash out of clothes and off of us. I'm not so much interesed in ease of use as I am in the ease of rethinking our goals. If they can put cheese in an aerosol can, I'm sure they'll figure out a convenient, wife-friendly form of application. The shortfall is, what are we going to apply?
A question of enamel spray? Or underlayment? I suspect you can mix almost anything up and spray it. What will it be?
I'm for any kind of spraying or painting as an offset for the 20 years when we all said, <u>Don't</u>. But I'd also like to include observation and record-keeping to give us some clues. Forward movement in this business isn't exclusively the domain of academics and engineers who chronicly lecture us. People who work with their hands have minds too., don't they?
--------------
My next rant will be on callus not being wound wood; and woundwood not being what we think it is. What we see closing over a wound is regular wood created by the cambium. We get a bit fooled by the appearance of the different bark as it closes, but that is simply juvenile bark. There is not wound wood beneath...
and a wound closes, on a mathematical basis, aided and much determined by the vigor of the tree, but never any faster than the time it takes for cambial cells to mature before their next division.
For closure speed, tree paint need not apply.
Bob Wulkowicz