Okay, I extracted more info from Ray this morning. ;-) Apparently the
slabs were real paving slab size - around 3' x 2.5' and they were buried a
yard below the apple trees' roots. I asked him how he had learned about
this (because I'd forgotten) and he said that 'old Tom' who used to work for
Ray's family nursery in Essex had told him. Old Tom had actually done the
digging and laying of the slabs for dozens of apple trees in his time.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(email address on website)

"Sacha" wrote in message
...
Okay, I extracted more info from Ray this morning. ;-) Apparently the
slabs were real paving slab size - around 3' x 2.5' and they were buried a
yard below the apple trees' roots. I asked him how he had learned about
this (because I'd forgotten) and he said that 'old Tom' who used to work
for
Ray's family nursery in Essex had told him. Old Tom had actually done the
digging and laying of the slabs for dozens of apple trees in his time.

I'm sorry, I'm going to be dense and ask, why? Why does one bury paving
slabs under apple trees? Is it to give the roots something to curl around
and act as ballast or anything like theat?
--
Rhiannon_s:
Just a scientific experiment gone horribly wrong.

On 9/8/06 13:34, in article , "Malcolm"
wrote:


In article , Sacha
writes
Okay, I extracted more info from Ray this morning. ;-) Apparently the
slabs were real paving slab size - around 3' x 2.5' and they were buried a
yard below the apple trees' roots. I asked him how he had learned about
this (because I'd forgotten) and he said that 'old Tom' who used to work for
Ray's family nursery in Essex had told him. Old Tom had actually done the
digging and laying of the slabs for dozens of apple trees in his time.

I remain very puzzled and still a little sceptical, not least because I
can find no mention of this in one or two old gardening books I have.

I can assure you it used to be done. Peter Thoday, who was one of the
advisers on the Victorian Kitchen Garden series (IIRC) also talked to Ray
about it.

It's certainly fascinating, but why just apples if it was just apples?
Are they more prone than other trees to send their roots, in your words,
"straight down", that they need this treatment? And why is it necessary
to stop this happening when the tree is first planted? I always thought
roots rarely went straight down but tended to spread out sideways
completely naturally unless confined by some barrier. And although,
again as you said, apples can grow quite large with a good sized canopy,
it has always been my understanding that in a large tree the extent of
the root system will, at a minimum, be equal to that of the canopy and
more usually up to twice as much, or even more.

I don't know if it was just apples but those are what I've been told about
and what Ray was told about. I don't know if other fruit trees were
mentioned.

--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/

On 9/8/06 13:20, in article , "Rhiannon S"
wrote:


"Sacha" wrote in message
...
Okay, I extracted more info from Ray this morning. ;-) Apparently the
slabs were real paving slab size - around 3' x 2.5' and they were buried a
yard below the apple trees' roots. I asked him how he had learned about
this (because I'd forgotten) and he said that 'old Tom' who used to work
for
Ray's family nursery in Essex had told him. Old Tom had actually done the
digging and laying of the slabs for dozens of apple trees in his time.

I'm sorry, I'm going to be dense and ask, why? Why does one bury paving
slabs under apple trees? Is it to give the roots something to curl around
and act as ballast or anything like theat?

No it forced the trees' roots to go wider before going downwards so giving a
broader 'grip' on the soil in the end and presumably, a bigger area from
which to draw nourishment and water. If anyone has seen the grape vine at
Hampton Court you'll see what a very large area is kept free of all other
planting so as to allow the Great Vine to get whatever nourishing goodies
are going. Like all old grape vines, its roots are outside the greenhouse
while its leafing and fruiting bits are inside. So I suppose it's possible
that was also part of the thinking behind the apple tree/paving slab
combination.
And you're not being dense at all! I'd certainly never heard of it and as
you can see, it doesn't seem as if anyone here has, either.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/

In article , Sacha writes:
| On 9/8/06 13:34, in article , "Malcolm"
| wrote:
|
| I remain very puzzled and still a little sceptical, not least because I
| can find no mention of this in one or two old gardening books I have.
|
| I can assure you it used to be done. Peter Thoday, who was one of the
| advisers on the Victorian Kitchen Garden series (IIRC) also talked to Ray
| about it.

I have seen a reference to it, but I can't remember where. If I recall,
it was used for the same purpose as a dwarfing rootstock, on the basis
that many trees will continue to grow straight upwards as long as they
can run a taproot straight downwards. From my very limited experiments
on trees in pots, there may be some truth in that, but I can't say any
more than "there may be".

| It's certainly fascinating, but why just apples if it was just apples?
| Are they more prone than other trees to send their roots, in your words,
| "straight down", that they need this treatment? And why is it necessary
| to stop this happening when the tree is first planted?

No, they aren't - less so than most, if anything.

| I always thought
| roots rarely went straight down but tended to spread out sideways
| completely naturally unless confined by some barrier.

It depends on the species. Many (e.g. walnuts) do drive a taproot a fair
way down. Some (e.g. most? conifers) spread immediately.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 9/8/06 17:51, in article , "Nick
Maclaren" wrote:


| On 9/8/06 13:34, in article , "Malcolm"
| wrote:
snip
| I always thought
| roots rarely went straight down but tended to spread out sideways
| completely naturally unless confined by some barrier.

It depends on the species. Many (e.g. walnuts) do drive a taproot a fair
way down. Some (e.g. most? conifers) spread immediately.

Ray recalls that it was done in some way to alter the growth of the tree but
doesn't remember how, precisely. So I've emailed Peter Thoday via the Eden
Project web site. If he answers, I'll let the group know.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/

"Sacha" wrote in message
...
Okay, I extracted more info from Ray this morning. ;-) Apparently
the
slabs were real paving slab size - around 3' x 2.5' and they were
buried a
yard below the apple trees' roots.

Wow! That is a SERIOUS hole. Almost like digging to China. The old
bloke who dug the holes must have been fit.

In article ,
"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow writes:
| "Sacha" wrote in message
| ...
| Okay, I extracted more info from Ray this morning. ;-) Apparently
| the
| slabs were real paving slab size - around 3' x 2.5' and they were
| buried a
| yard below the apple trees' roots.
|
| Wow! That is a SERIOUS hole. Almost like digging to China. The old
| bloke who dug the holes must have been fit.

Eh? That is a third of the effort of digging a standard grave. It is
only shifting a tonne up by under a metre. Even I could do that in a
day.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow writes:
| "Sacha" wrote in message
| ...
| Okay, I extracted more info from Ray this morning. ;-)
Apparently
| the
| slabs were real paving slab size - around 3' x 2.5' and they
were
| buried a
| yard below the apple trees' roots.
|
| Wow! That is a SERIOUS hole. Almost like digging to China. The
old
| bloke who dug the holes must have been fit.

Eh? That is a third of the effort of digging a standard grave. It
is
only shifting a tonne up by under a metre. Even I could do that in
a
day.

Well I dips me lid to you, you clearly don't spend all your time
behind a computer.

I've planted quite few apple trees over the years (both bare rooted
and potted) and a hole of that size is big. I can't imagine digging
down another yard below the level of the roots of the tree.

In article ,
Malcolm writes:
|
| And what does a 3' x 2.5' slab weigh, do you suppose?

Of the order of 2 cwt. Even for navvies, getting one of those to the
bottom of a 3' hole is a two-man job.

At least with digging a hole (in SOFT ground), you can adjust the
amount you dig to your strength.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 10/8/06 08:02, in article
, "Farm1"
please@askifyouwannaknow wrote:

"Sacha" wrote in message
...
Okay, I extracted more info from Ray this morning. ;-) Apparently
the
slabs were real paving slab size - around 3' x 2.5' and they were
buried a
yard below the apple trees' roots.

Wow! That is a SERIOUS hole. Almost like digging to China. The old
bloke who dug the holes must have been fit.


I think so! He wasn't old all his life, of course. ;-) But people who
worked on the land then - and now - usually are and were pretty fit. They
didn't ride around in cars much 'back then', either and there wasn't the
sophisticated machinery we'd use now to dig such holes. All the artificial
lakes one sees at e.g. stately homes were dug out by hand originally, I
would think. My husband is 73 and still does a full day's work on the
nursery or digs in the garden etc. and I doubt he'll ever stop. He's a lot
fitter than I am! We always have a quiet smile when some stripling of 65
comes in and tells us he's moving to a house with a smaller garden now that
he's getting older!
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Malcolm writes:
|
| And what does a 3' x 2.5' slab weigh, do you suppose?

Of the order of 2 cwt. Even for navvies, getting one of those to the
bottom of a 3' hole is a two-man job.

I thinkl that is a bit of an overestimate, I can, just, lift a 3' X 2', but
not for long!

Alan


At least with digging a hole (in SOFT ground), you can adjust the
amount you dig to your strength.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
"Alan Holmes" writes:
|
| | And what does a 3' x 2.5' slab weigh, do you suppose?
|
| Of the order of 2 cwt. Even for navvies, getting one of those to the
| bottom of a 3' hole is a two-man job.
|
| I thinkl that is a bit of an overestimate, I can, just, lift a 3' X 2', but
| not for long!

You would use the same technique as a coffin, but could walk it sideways
in the sling, so wouldn't need a third person. Or, at least, two navvies
wouldn't - you would need rather more random urglers :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Janet Baraclough wrote:
The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:
[...]
You would use the same technique as a coffin, but could walk it sideways
in the sling, so wouldn't need a third person.

I can't lift a 3 by 2 right off the ground by myself but John can. As
we're unmatched lifters, we've found it's much easier to push really
heavy stones round the garden on HD rollers (scaffolding pipes are
ideal). When positioning one in a hole, we just dig the hole with one
end of it sloping like a ramp slide (to guide the bottom end down).

If it's only across grass, I've found that I can move quite big stones
single-handed by levering them onto a big heavy-duty plastic bag and
pulling. (I moved a Jotul "Easter Island Statue" wood burner from one
end of the house to the other in the same way, so it works on carpet,
too.) If trying this technique, don't continue if you feel any sort of
twinge in the crutch region!

--
Mike.

--
Mike.

I've just gone back from the chiropractor and you've made my neck and
back
ache again!
--
Sacha
South Devon



Would you like me to come and massage them for you?

Mike
Isle of Wight


--
------------------------------------------------
Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rnshipmates.co.uk
www.nsrafa.com