Heading vs Reduction Cuts on Temporary Branches on Young Trees?

[Stumpsprouts]

Here is an example of what perplexes me in pruning. Today I trimmed this little Saijo persimmon behind my barn. I am letting it develop some low scaffold branches and will select for some higher on the tree. See the branch on the left: I want to turn the low, lateral shoot into that branch's leader and ultimately remove the two upright leaders. Note this branch's base, showing it became codominant, almost the size of the tree's leader.

View attachment 86288

So far, my cuts have just been large heading cuts to the two upright branches, one the former leader and one fighting it for dominance:


View attachment 86289

So you might wonder why I didn't just go ahead and take them off, and that is my question. Should I? I am trying to decide. Taking them off now would result in a large, awkward wound, I think. It would be like heading a sapling or majorly reducing it to the lateral, but I think orchardists do that all the time. I hedge on whether it's a "reduction" instead of a heading cut because the branch seems just under or maybe barely 3x smaller than the diameter of the stem.

By heading the branches but waiting on cutting the stem, I hope to slow their growth and thereby shrink the trunk-like branch section below them. But will that work is my second question? If the headed branches go wild, I can head them again this summer.

So I hear again and again that young trees can really take a whacking. So if I were in your shoes with your pruners in your hand I would just cut the pieces off that you wanted to cut off. Leaving the half branch is sort of keeping the hose on (with water and nutrients flowing) to a part of the tree that you don't intend to keep past a year or so. And that feels like a waste of energy. If you cut it now, that energy will go towards the structure you want to train.

The staged cuts on branches makes sense to me to apply to old trees that take a much longer time to compartmentalize and redistribute their photosynthesizing efforts... doesn't seem worth it for saplings... just my two cents.

 

[Mossy Dell]

Thanks, Stumpsprouts. Makes sense.

 

[ATH]

So I hear again and again that young trees can really take a whacking. So if I were in your shoes with your pruners in your hand I would just cut the pieces off that you wanted to cut off. Leaving the half branch is sort of keeping the hose on (with water and nutrients flowing) to a part of the tree that you don't intend to keep past a year or so. And that feels like a waste of energy. If you cut it now, that energy will go towards the structure you want to train.

The staged cuts on branches makes sense to me to apply to old trees that take a much longer time to compartmentalize and redistribute their photosynthesizing efforts... doesn't seem worth it for saplings... just my two cents.

I don't disagree...but the other side of that coin is by taking everything now the tree will be producing less energy with fewer leaves/photosynthetic potential.

Further you may mess with the taper of the trunk.

That is the argument for leaving half of a branch.

I'm not saying I definitively know one is better than the other in all circumstances...just offering a counter point.

 

[Mossy Dell]

Thanks, ATH. I had decided it doesn't matter, either would be fine. But as you note: not necessarily!

I know heaps more theory than I ever have. And it helps me, until I actually go out to prune.

By the way, I know Findlay. My wife's family, the Krendls, are from Spencerville and are all over NW Ohio's little farm towns and Lima.

 

[ATH]

Have them call of they need help with trees

I knew SW VA for 4 years (94-98) a bit ago...we'll at least Blacksburg. Got my forestry degree. Much prettier place than NW OH!

 

[Mossy Dell]

Yes . . . Don't think I'd survive the bleakness of winter in NW Ohio. We are in a small town 20 minutes from Blacksburg. VA TECH is a great school. I teach retirees personal nonfiction writing there once a year in their Lifelong Learning Institute.