"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"VisionSet" wrote in message
...

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from "VisionSet" contains these words:


"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from "VisionSet" contains these words:


Since gardening is about taming nature, there is nothing wrong
with
cutting
it down. However, a Birch *is* a fantastic tree and responds
well
to
pollarding.

Er, no, it's one of the trees that responds very badly to
pollarding.


Also it depends what you want. There's a birch near us, that the
owner
has
successively 'pollarded' and selectively kept primary tips.

?? Those two terms are incompatible. After pollarding, no primary
growth or leaders remain.
I still think you have mistaken the meaning of the word pollard.


Once pollarded, many new primaries are generated, from those one is
selected, in the case I mentioned.

--
Mike W


Any branch leading off the trunk of a tree is a primary branch.
Branches off that are secondary branches.

That has nothing to do with primary growth or leaders.

Using a primary branch as the primary growth of a tree - rather
than the trunk will simply produce a crooked tree.

Which would render the whole exercise rather pointless.

There is no primary growth on leaders in either pollarded or
coppiced wood. All the new primary branches develop in unison
either from the foot of the trunk or around 6ft up, and are
harvested once they reach the required size. And the whole
process starts over.


This is a tangential issue regarding a tree I have noticed near me. See
parallel thread. The tree in question is crooked, intentionally so, so no,
not pointless.

--
Mike W

"VisionSet" wrote in message
...

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"VisionSet" wrote in message
...

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from "VisionSet" contains these words:


"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from "VisionSet" contains these words:


Since gardening is about taming nature, there is nothing wrong
with
cutting
it down. However, a Birch *is* a fantastic tree and responds
well
to
pollarding.

Er, no, it's one of the trees that responds very badly to
pollarding.


Also it depends what you want. There's a birch near us, that the
owner
has
successively 'pollarded' and selectively kept primary tips.

?? Those two terms are incompatible. After pollarding, no primary
growth or leaders remain.
I still think you have mistaken the meaning of the word pollard.


Once pollarded, many new primaries are generated, from those one is
selected, in the case I mentioned.

--
Mike W


Any branch leading off the trunk of a tree is a primary branch.
Branches off that are secondary branches.

That has nothing to do with primary growth or leaders.

Using a primary branch as the primary growth of a tree - rather
than the trunk will simply produce a crooked tree.

Which would render the whole exercise rather pointless.

There is no primary growth on leaders in either pollarded or
coppiced wood. All the new primary branches develop in unison
either from the foot of the trunk or around 6ft up, and are
harvested once they reach the required size. And the whole
process starts over.


This is a tangential issue regarding a tree I have noticed near me.
See parallel thread.

....

Which parallel thread ? AFAIAA there are only two current tree
threads. This and the Ash Tree thread, to which your contribution
was minimal.

....


The tree in question is crooked, intentionally so, so no,
not pointless.

....

All other things being equal, a crooked tree is an unbalanced
tree and thus likely to constitute a hazard at some point in
the future, and thus something which should be avoided if at
all possible.

Perhaps if you quote what you actually posted, things may become
clearer.


michael adams

....


--
Mike W

Sacha Hubbard writes
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 20:08:11 +0100, K wrote
(in article ):


It's like people who live in
towns and dream of moving to the countryside. When they do, they complain
that the farms smell of cows or pigs and that the lane is covered in pats
or
that there's no street-lighting. Bah!

Not all people who move from town to countryside complain.

Please don't generalise.

Please do not pull me up on something I didn't do. I did not say ALL people
who live in towns etc. I said 'people'. In this very village we have had
that experience.

You didn't say 'some people who live in towns' etc. Your post seemed to
me to be a generalisation.

Over my years with urg there have been a good number of posts implying
that people who live in towns are inferior to those who live in the
countryside, and I am really fed up of it.

--
Kay

On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 23:25:50 +0100, K wrote
(in article ):

Sacha Hubbard writes
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 20:08:11 +0100, K wrote
(in article ):


It's like people who live in
towns and dream of moving to the countryside. When they do, they
complain
that the farms smell of cows or pigs and that the lane is covered in pats
or
that there's no street-lighting. Bah!

Not all people who move from town to countryside complain.

Please don't generalise.

Please do not pull me up on something I didn't do. I did not say ALL people
who live in towns etc. I said 'people'. In this very village we have had
that experience.

You didn't say 'some people who live in towns' etc. Your post seemed to
me to be a generalisation.

No, you extrapolated that because of your own feelings. I did not say "all
people who live in towns", either.

Over my years with urg there have been a good number of posts implying
that people who live in towns are inferior to those who live in the
countryside, and I am really fed up of it.

I would suggest that over those years you should have come to know that I do
not say that, think it or believe it. I'm hardly a horny handed daughter of
the soil, myself! And over those same years we have had many posts from
people who want trees cut down or birds stopped from nesting because it
messes up their cars or their terraces. It is that to which I object,
extremely strongly and I'm not alone in that.

--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
email address on web site

"michael adams" wrote in message
...


Which parallel thread ? AFAIAA there are only two current tree
threads. This and the Ash Tree thread, to which your contribution
was minimal.

The thread that is a subthread of this 'Tree - Help' thread, where I said:

'Also it depends what you want. There's a birch near us, that the owner has
successively 'pollarded' and selectively kept primary tips. It now does a
nice artistic wiggle and droops nicely to one side, lanternesque.'

I agree my quoting has been less than its immaculate norm, The thread had
split, I'd forgotten which bit I was in.


...


The tree in question is crooked, intentionally so, so no,
not pointless.

...

All other things being equal, a crooked tree is an unbalanced
tree and thus likely to constitute a hazard at some point in
the future, and thus something which should be avoided if at
all possible.

I'll be sure to relay you views.

--
Mike W

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from K contains these words:

Over my years with urg there have been a good number of posts implying
that people who live in towns are inferior to those who live in the
countryside, and I am really fed up of it.

Cheer up Kay, it could be much worse. You might live in a town in
Scotland, instead of one in Rupert's Own Country.

:~}

Janet

--
Isle of Arran Open Gardens weekend 21,22,23 July 2006
5 UKP three-day adult ticket (funds go to island charities) buys entry
to 26 private gardens

I wanna make a comment on that but I canna.

On the subject of cutting birch trees, which this thread is
about.
I had a discussion about a year ago with Roger Brook of
Bolton Percy churchyard fame. He likes young silver birches but
hasn't really got space for adults - and doesn't want the site
completely shaded. He keeps the birches in a cycle. When they
get too big he cuts them to the ground. After that a coppice forms
on the roots. He selects one of the new shoots and cuts the rest.
It grows fast on the roots of a mature tree and looks indistinguishable
from a normal birch sapling. I may have missed something on this
but I'm sure he'd be happy to advise if you got in touch.

Sacha Hubbard writes
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 23:25:50 +0100, K wrote
(in article ):

Sacha Hubbard writes
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 20:08:11 +0100, K wrote
(in article ):


It's like people who live in
towns and dream of moving to the countryside. When they do, they
complain
that the farms smell of cows or pigs and that the lane is covered in pats
or
that there's no street-lighting. Bah!

Not all people who move from town to countryside complain.

Please don't generalise.

Please do not pull me up on something I didn't do. I did not say ALL people
who live in towns etc. I said 'people'. In this very village we have had
that experience.

You didn't say 'some people who live in towns' etc. Your post seemed to
me to be a generalisation.

No, you extrapolated that because of your own feelings. I did not say "all
people who live in towns", either.

Yes, I agree from your further comment you were probably thinking of
particular people when you wrote that, and I agree you touched a sore
nerve, so apologies for misinterpreting your meaning.

Over my years with urg there have been a good number of posts implying
that people who live in towns are inferior to those who live in the
countryside, and I am really fed up of it.

I would suggest that over those years you should have come to know that I do
not say that, think it or believe it.

No, indeed, I can't recall you saying something similar in the past. But
my rant wasn't aimed at you personally (it's something I do get cross
about and your original post did seem to me to be a generalisation).
And, of course, although I disagree with some of your views (as you do
mine), it doesn't lessen my regard for you as a person.

I'm hardly a horny handed daughter of
the soil, myself! And over those same years we have had many posts from
people who want trees cut down or birds stopped from nesting because it
messes up their cars or their terraces. It is that to which I object,
extremely strongly and I'm not alone in that.

I agree with you there. I'm exceedingly worried about the current
felling of trees for fear of subsidence - I suspect both homeowners and
insurers to be erring on the side of caution. Our towns need their
trees, for emotional well being of town dwellers apart from anything
else. Which leaves me with the question - what is the difference between
felling a birch tree and repeatedly lopping a whole row of beech trees
in order to make a hedge? ;-)
--
Kay

"K" wrote in message

"...I'm exceedingly worried about the current
felling of trees for fear of subsidence - I suspect both homeowners and
insurers to be erring on the side of caution...."
--
Kay

------------------

But (sadly) society today is about claims and damage limitation, making sure
that when you come to sell your house some mortgage valuer does not place a
retention or similar on the property due to his/her fear a tree and property
are a bit too close to each other.
I have been watching this thread with interest following my couple of posts
on it. I should say, that at no point did I say I was intending to cut down
this tree. That is, despite it being a nuisance to my driveway and caravan,
which is true. What I would like to know however, which no-one has answered
to any depth, is what damage the tree can cause. In this contest I mean,
what is the safest distance the tree could be without a risk of damage to a
building. I know already what damage it can do to a pavement as the
Highway's Authority have had to resurface the public footpath. Oh and by the
way, and the catkins cause a bit more of a problem than describe by one
contributor, particularly when wet and dry out on the roof of a caravan !
....I must apologise to those contributors that have a 'thing' about
caravans, they are a part of out lives, just like gardening is a part of
yours...LOL.
--
John
GMails - Our Caravanning bit of the web
www.gmails.co.uk/forums

Janet Tweedy writes
In article , K
writes

Which leaves me with the question - what is the difference between
felling a birch tree and repeatedly lopping a whole row of beech trees
order to make a hedge? ;-)


One leaves room for another new house and the other can grow back if
left and provides shelter for birds and insects

or was it a rhetorical question?

It was in response to comments which suggested it verged on the immoral
to cut down a tree for human convenience.
--
Kay

On 11/6/06 11:17, in article , "Janet Tweedy"
wrote:

In article , K
writes

Which leaves me with the question - what is the difference between
felling a birch tree and repeatedly lopping a whole row of beech trees
in order to make a hedge? ;-)


One leaves room for another new house and the other can grow back if
left and provides shelter for birds and insects

or was it a rhetorical question?

And perhaps, the beech hedge is not being cut back just to stop a vehicle or
drive from getting dirty.........

--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(email address on website)

On 11/6/06 12:34, in article , "K"
wrote:

Janet Tweedy writes
In article , K
writes

Which leaves me with the question - what is the difference between
felling a birch tree and repeatedly lopping a whole row of beech trees
order to make a hedge? ;-)


One leaves room for another new house and the other can grow back if
left and provides shelter for birds and insects

or was it a rhetorical question?

It was in response to comments which suggested it verged on the immoral
to cut down a tree for human convenience.

IMO, it is indeed immoral to cut down a tree, just so that you don't have to
sweep a drive or clean a car or caravan. I think it immoral to knock down
birds' nests so that your terrace doesn't get messy, too. Perhaps you
don't, so we shall have to differ on those issues.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(email address on website)

Sacha writes
On 11/6/06 11:17, in article , "Janet Tweedy"
wrote:

In article , K
writes

Which leaves me with the question - what is the difference between
felling a birch tree and repeatedly lopping a whole row of beech trees
in order to make a hedge? ;-)


One leaves room for another new house and the other can grow back if
left and provides shelter for birds and insects

or was it a rhetorical question?

And perhaps, the beech hedge is not being cut back just to stop a vehicle or
drive from getting dirty.........

So why would one keep a hedge to, say. 6ft? To allow someone to get
sunshine in their garden, perhaps? So why not use something more
suitable as a boundary, something that only grows to 6ft anyway? Or even
a fence?

I hate to see trees cut down, but logically I can't make a distinction
between cutting down a tree and repeatedly trimming a tree or a bush.
OK, if you cut the tree down, then that's it, dead, but otoh it has
probably had a 'good life' growing relatively free and unconstrained
until that point.
--
Kay

Sacha writes


IMO, it is indeed immoral to cut down a tree, just so that you don't have to
sweep a drive or clean a car or caravan. I think it immoral to knock down
birds' nests so that your terrace doesn't get messy, too. Perhaps you
don't, so we shall have to differ on those issues.

I've never said anything to suggest that I'd knock down a birds nest for
any reason, so don't suggest that I would. See my reply to your other
post for my stance on trees - I just can't see any logic in a moral
stance that says it's OK to stunt a tree by repeated pruning but not OK
to let it free for a while and then kill it. I'm not suggesting that you
take this stance.
--
Kay

"Sacha" wrote in message

"The OP was discussing chopping down a tree to keep a drive and vehicle
clean..."


--
Sacha

-----------------

Er, no he (I) wasn't.
That was YOU that came to that conclusion love.
--
John
GMails - Our Caravanning bit of the web
www.gmails.co.uk/forums