Topping Bradford Pears

[ QUOTE ]

the post said topping bradford trees not reducing bradford trees !

[/ QUOTE ]

That is why we need to define our terms.. What he called topping, is most likely what Guy and I call reduction.. Especially on Bradford Pears.. Even if the customer is thinking hatracking.. and you can't talk him out of it, you can still tell him you can get him the same effect, call it topping with cuts made to optimal nodes to prevent future decay and structural problems, or whatever it takes to give yourself a little wiggle room, then reduce them properly, as best you can and still meet the customers wants, and hope the customer likes it.. Of course it is best if the customer is there for the job, to make sure he's happy enough to pay you!

The point here is that you can drastically reduce a bradford pear and still leave a very healthy and viable tree, in a way that you cannot cut deciduous shade trees, such as maple, ash, oak, hickory, elm etc... So the difference between topping and reducing is going to very much depend on the species of tree, not necessarily on how big the cuts are, or following the 1/3 rule etc..

Would you agree with that Guy?
 
I am glad there is not a single Bradford pear within hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of miles of this place.

Had to do a 'topping' of a smaller willow today (when a pruning job morphed into a topping job - work order miscomunication again...I know I know Guy..what you are gonna say already!!!) but I did a crown reduction through drop crotching to smaller branches instead and the client accepted it. I can live with that.
 
"I am glad there is not a single Bradford pear within hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of miles of this place."

That is what I thought of my town...

I offered to remove the B Pear tree's for extremely reduced rate, grind stumps and suggest replacement trees.
They did not go for it. Some of the Condo owners 'like' their blown out, weakly attached 18 ft tall junk.
 
Actually the difference between topping and reduction is...topping = internodal ; reduction=cuts at the nodes....some people do not need "wiggle" room because they are totally straight w their clients. I actua;;y explain EXACTly what and how and how much will be removed. I do agree that you cant reduce an old beech as much as you can a young pear.....but terms, amounts, techniques,all explained.
If a client says "Yeah uh...id like dis ting uhhh cut in half!!" and then i go through my whole talk and explanation.....sometimes2xs armed w printed info....and they still wont move to what is proper.....i polietly thank them and explain that they are not a good fit for our company.....done!!
 
[ QUOTE ]
The point here is that you can drastically reduce a bradford pear and still leave a very healthy and viable tree, in a way that you cannot cut deciduous shade trees, such as maple, ash, oak, hickory, elm etc... So the difference between topping and reducing is going to very much depend on the species of tree, not necessarily on how big the cuts are, or following the 1/3 rule etc..

Would you agree with that Guy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup. Writing specs using ANSI A300 standards makes work so easy, and avoids these arguments.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point here is that you can drastically reduce a bradford pear and still leave a very healthy and viable tree, in a way that you cannot cut deciduous shade trees, such as maple, ash, oak, hickory, elm etc... So the difference between topping and reducing is going to very much depend on the species of tree, not necessarily on how big the cuts are, or following the 1/3 rule etc..

Would you agree with that Guy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup. Writing specs using ANSI A300 standards makes work so easy, and avoids these arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

ANSI specs are easy because of the lack of specificity. Open your part one and find the definition of "node".

Not a whole lot of insight for such an esoteric procedure. From the ground this type of reduction looks very much like topping. One first has to understand the role and function of an "endo" cormic bud. Then one would have to be proficient at locating them. The pruning strategy being advocated here could use some further instruction to clear up confusion.

ed
 
ANSI is bs . what is written today may not be written tomorrow . there rules and regulations are always changing . there are also some rules and regs i do not believe are correct , like how close a crane can be to power lines . i think it should be a little further away because of arking . the guys who make these rules sit behind a desk not work in the field .
 
can't say I AM thrilled with ANSI pruning standards either..

they say something like:
prune to remove no more than 25% of foliage a year.. amount to be adjusted according to age and condition of tree...

then I say something like:
why not be more specific and say that 25% should be for young vigorous trees only and be reduced significantly to 10% or less for mature/stressed trees etc...

The they say.. "we don't need to be more specific.. it is assumed that a qualified arborist knows that already..

then I say something like: ya a lot of good that does.. if he is qualified, then he doesn't need your standard.. if he isn't qualified, then it isn't going to do him much good..

a similar conversation went down when I suggested that they specify that the arborist should attempt to make smaller pruning cuts on branch tips, rather than large cuts on the main trunk..
they didn't want to hear that either..
think about it.. you can remove 25% ( or whatever amount you specify) of the foliage of a tree by removing one out of four main leads... or one out of four large limbs, or going out to each branch tip and removing 1/4 of the foliage there with handsaw cuts of 1-1.5" diameter.. Which is better for the tree??? Don't look to ansi.. they're not going to tell you!
 
[ QUOTE ]

ANSI is bs . what is written today may not be written tomorrow . there rules and regulations are always changing . there are also some rules and regs i do not believe are correct , like how close a crane can be to power lines . i think it should be a little further away because of arking . the guys who make these rules sit behind a desk not work in the field .

[/ QUOTE ]

I knwo nothing about crane work--this will be taken up by the ANSI Z safety committee next week. If you have a comment send it in!

As for the ANSI A300 tree care committee, most members still work in the field to some extent. A few still climb and there are researchers and supervisors and other knowledgeable folks. Standards are revised every 5 years--how often do you recommend?

I just worked for 3 days with the A300 people, and can tell you they are very much in touch with the field. If anyone submits constructive comments, they always get a fair hearing. Make sure of the facts before voicing any destructive comments.
wink.gif


Daniel, Ed, if you have suggestions for more detail, please make specific suggestions. 2013 is right around the corner. Remember that 25% is a should, not a shall, and that "endocormic" is not yet in their vocabulary. ;)

"Had to do a 'topping' of a smaller willow today (when a pruning job morphed into a topping job - work order miscomunication again...I know I know Guy..what you are gonna say already!!!) but I did a crown reduction through drop crotching to smaller branches instead and the client accepted it. I can live with that.Had to do a 'topping' of a smaller willow today (when a pruning job morphed into a topping job - work order miscomunication again...I know I know Guy..what you are gonna say already!!!) but I did a crown reduction through drop crotching to smaller branches instead and the client accepted it. I can live with that."

Rock on, you wild woman! Great to hear of adjustments made in the field like that. Adjusting for species; natural.
grin.gif
 
And...I convinced a woman today I should not reduce her Japanese Tree Lilac by half.
I asked her why she wanted it that short and she could not come up with a reason rthat even made sense to her...so we agreed to only a slight crown reduction and gave it a better shape....and cleared from house.

I can live with myself again today.
 
That's it.. this business isn't just about trees.. its about doing what is best for trees and people.. Most people will listen to reason, and often its better to give the unyielding customer a little, than to walk and let someone with less knowledge/skill to do the job.. It might rub you a little wrong, but is probably the best thing to do for the tree.. Of course we all have our own standards.. and with some clients, its best to just walk than do the work they want done...
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Daniel, Ed, if you have suggestions for more detail, please make specific suggestions. 2013 is right around the corner. Remember that 25% is a should, not a shall, and that "endocormic" is not yet in their vocabulary. ;)
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

My point is, if this type of pruning is to be advocated here and or elsewhere, perhaps more detailed instruction of the process would clear up the apparent confusion between the participants. We are talking about pruning back to anatomical structures deeply connected within the vascular with little outward signs of their presence.

Perhaps, ANSI part one is a poor source for "endo"cormic reduction pruning. "Node" is not even defined in the ANSI part one.
crazy.gif
 
They could have easily made a few changes as per recommendations to make the pruning standards more clear and user/tree friendly.. BUT THEY DIDN'T...

After that, it doesn't matter what you say about who they are or what they have done.. IMO they are idiots..
 
[ QUOTE ]
We are talking about pruning back to anatomical structures deeply connected within the vascular with little outward signs of their presence.

[/ QUOTE ]here we are talking about pruning back to small laterals, which pears are full of. In other species we are talking about buds, and even when they are not visible, their signs are easy to see.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps, ANSI part one is a poor source for "endo"cormic reduction pruning. "Node" is not even defined in the ANSI part one.
crazy.gif


[/ QUOTE ]Well it could be better, I agree. Node will be defined next time. Daniel as for next time maybe your recommendations could be more clear or better supported. If so, this idiot
grin.gif
will advocate for them.
 
hey guy i am always thinking and trying to be a better man then i was the day before . i know it is far more easy to sit back and complain and point out problems and not any solutions , but i think you are right . it would be better to get more proactive in ansi then just complain about it. nothing is perfect but maybe if we get more proactive in it we could help to make it as perfect as we can , especially since we are in the field . i always like your post and learn alot from then . thanks !
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just start the pollard. Come back in three years and prune back to the knuckles. Repeat every three years. Then send your kid to college with the money.

SZ

[/ QUOTE ]

Like
icon14.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Like

We practice arboriculture and pollarding is viable tree culturing practice.

I strongly recommend you get used to it and get good at it.
It is the art in the art and science of arboriculture.
Who better to earn the buck? Someone who actually cares or the hack?
Think about it!
He wants to invest money in the tree and that means investing in you as well!
wink.gif

Eventually the HO will trust you to do what is right and at this point all he knows or sees is alot of topping but you can start the chain reaction in that neighbourhood that will show that a properly pollarded/topped tree can be living art.
I have been doing this type of work for years repairing bad topping or what I also call renovation pruning or naturalizing.
Don't forget to experiment with stem tracing.
I feel it is one of the best ways to control and direct growth. Root pruning is also nice way of controlling growth. In school we learned it as the Scottish prune.
AYE it Works!
beerchug.gif
 
OK Guy,
After a re-read, I could write a much better letter..

As far as the should, in the following, I take that to mean no more than 25% should be removed... since it is not a shall, you can remove more than 25% if you want to.

IMO This is the worst of all the terrible instructions they give.. If arbs are supposed to use this as a "guide" it should be as clear and user friendly as possible. They kept on spouting some garbage about it being a legal document.. If that is all it is, something to be used in the courtroom, then someone ought to write a standard that gives solid, practical instructions, that any pro arb can read and apply, without having to ask himself now WTF does that mean!

The ANSI pruning standard is poorly written, ambiguous, and misleading. It is both a casue and a reflection of the poor state of education in this industry.

NOTE: my suggestions are put in parenthesis..

5.5.5 Not more than 25 percent of the foliage should be removed (on young and vigorous trees) within an annual growing season. The percentage and distribution of foliage to be removed shall be adjusted according to the plant’s species, age, health, and site. (The percent of the foliage to be removed should be no more than 10% , on older, less vigorous trees, and species known to be sensitive to over pruning.)

What do you think of that wording???
 
[ QUOTE ]
1...someone ought to write a standard that gives solid, practical instructions, that any pro arb can read and apply, without having to ask himself now WTF does that mean!..

2
5.5.5 Not more than 25 percent of the foliage should be removed (on young and vigorous trees) within an annual growing season. The percentage and distribution of foliage to be removed shall be adjusted according to the plant’s species, age, health, and site. (The percent of the foliage to be removed should be no more than 10% , on older, less vigorous trees, and species known to be sensitive to over pruning.)

What do you think of that wording???

[/ QUOTE ]

1. They did, it's called the ISA BMP.

2. Note the "*shall* be adjusted". Your 2nd addition heads in the right direction imo. the 1st addition seems too limiting--lots of trees can handle 50%+ off. Drawing these lines is really hard given the broad distribution of species and regions and objectives.

I'm gonna do some bradfords later this week; i'll try writing specs for support and pruning and post em here.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We are talking about pruning back to anatomical structures deeply connected within the vascular with little outward signs of their presence.

[/ QUOTE ]here we are talking about pruning back to small laterals, which pears are full of. In other species we are talking about buds, and even when they are not visible, their signs are easy to see.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you said this in the third post in this thread...

[ QUOTE ]

There's a phobia about terms here. Go ahead and 'top' it back to selected nodes/laterals; just make them at different heights so the regrowth is more spread out. If you cut at nodes and with regard for health and structure it is NOT topping (even if it looks really extreme).

Read ANSI A300. The above is compliant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you not talking about pruning back to "endo" cormic buds here?


4.18 heading: The reduction of a shoot, stem or branch back to a bud or to a lateral branch not large enough to assume the terminal role. ANSI A300 part one. So in essence, "endo" cormic reduction. Why then does it's companion publication, ISA pruning BMP, call such pruning cuts "topping" and "should not be used" on page 24?

I see the value in your selective heading reductions (even though it's not being discussed here
grin.gif
) and I also own and subscribe to the shoulds and the shalls. These two publications should each support the other but they are troubled siblings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom