In article ,
Charlie Pridham writes:
|
| As Bob has said it may have a bit of canker, but all my trees have that
| and still produce more apples than I can cope with! try inspecting one of
| the brown lumpy growths as its possible that the may have colenys of
| wolly aphid hiding in them. these and the canker can be treated while you
| get the tree back to a better shape, do a bit each year, its not a big
| tree and will not take forever. Bobs advice is sound if you want maximum
| crops or have the space to try again somewhere else, but if it was mine I
| would keep the tree.

Bear with me a moment ....

I am giving programming courses, and am having some difficulty with
the younger generation (as much colleagues as students, and even the
latter are graduates). I deal in understanding, not recipes, and
that is so terribly, terribly passe - and virtually everything I say
is conditional (i.e. "IF this is so, THEN this is so or do this.")
Most people nowadays want spoon feeding with canned recipes :-(

One of the reasons that I dislike most advice books is that they
are the opposite. Simple, conditional-free recipes. And, like all
such simplifications, they are wrong more often than right, because
they are true under only some conditions. And canker is a prime
example.

Why do they all regard canker as something to eliminate, even at
the cost of replacing the tree? It is unsightly, can weaken major
branches and does harbour woolly aphids, but it does effectively
nothing to reduce the crop. Perhaps 10%, but how many amateurs
care about that?

It's like the heartwood-destroying fungi. Until they weaken the
tree enough for it to break up, they don't have ANY effect on
its health! As Oliver Rackham points out, they are effectively
symbiotic with some trees (like oaks), in that they extend the
tree's life by centuries.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.