| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Wollemi Pine
I have a Wollemi Pine and need to prune it
now & then. Can someone advise how to propagate from the cuttings? Regards |
Wollemi Pine
"Peter Jason" wrote in message ... I have a Wollemi Pine and need to prune it now & then. Can someone advise how to propagate from the cuttings? Regards Thought you needed a license to propagate them? Are you having to prune it because its inside? otherwise why bother? -- Charlie, gardening in Cornwall. http://www.roselandhouse.co.uk Holders of National Plant Collections of Clematis viticella (cvs) and Lapageria rosea |
Wollemi Pine
Sacha wrote: On 29/11/06 16:15, in article , "Charlie Pridham" wrote: "Peter Jason" wrote in message ... I have a Wollemi Pine and need to prune it now & then. Can someone advise how to propagate from the cuttings? Regards Thought you needed a license to propagate them? Are you having to prune it because its inside? otherwise why bother? I didn't think any of the ones now being sold here or in Aus would be of a size to prune yet, including the one pinched from Kew! This very mysterious. I really don't think Peter should prune it at all, and I don't understand the "need to prune it now and again". But since he acquired it lawfully and there are so few in private hands, he should go straight to the Royal Botanic Gardens for advice rather than ask us to speculate -- they took a four-figure sum from him, after all. I don't think licensing issues arise if there's no intention to sell the youngsters, unless there's some special measure in force in Aus for extreme cases like this. -- Mike. |
Wollemi Pine
On 29/11/06 18:18, in article
, "Mike Lyle" wrote: Sacha wrote: On 29/11/06 16:15, in article , "Charlie Pridham" wrote: "Peter Jason" wrote in message ... I have a Wollemi Pine and need to prune it now & then. Can someone advise how to propagate from the cuttings? Regards Thought you needed a license to propagate them? Are you having to prune it because its inside? otherwise why bother? I didn't think any of the ones now being sold here or in Aus would be of a size to prune yet, including the one pinched from Kew! This very mysterious. I really don't think Peter should prune it at all, and I don't understand the "need to prune it now and again". But since he acquired it lawfully and there are so few in private hands, he should go straight to the Royal Botanic Gardens for advice rather than ask us to speculate -- they took a four-figure sum from him, after all. I don't think licensing issues arise if there's no intention to sell the youngsters, unless there's some special measure in force in Aus for extreme cases like this. I didn't see a price mentioned? In any case the ISP is supposedly in Victoria, Australia but he's posting through uni.berlin.de I suspect it's a wind up from someone who feels urg's a bit too quiet atm. ;-) -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ |
Wollemi Pine
"Charlie Pridham" wrote in message ... "Peter Jason" wrote in message ... I have a Wollemi Pine and need to prune it now & then. Can someone advise how to propagate from the cuttings? Regards Thought you needed a license to propagate them? Are you having to prune it because its inside? otherwise why bother? -- Charlie, gardening in Cornwall. http://www.roselandhouse.co.uk Holders of National Plant Collections of Clematis viticella (cvs) and Lapageria rosea It is about 1/2 meter tall and the top is growing fast. I don't have a garden and it lives in a pot on the patio. I just want to train it into an attractive shape because it has branches lower down that grow out horizontally. |
Wollemi Pine
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message oups.com... Sacha wrote: On 29/11/06 16:15, in article , "Charlie Pridham" wrote: "Peter Jason" wrote in message ... I have a Wollemi Pine and need to prune it now & then. Can someone advise how to propagate from the cuttings? Regards Thought you needed a license to propagate them? Are you having to prune it because its inside? otherwise why bother? I didn't think any of the ones now being sold here or in Aus would be of a size to prune yet, including the one pinched from Kew! This very mysterious. I really don't think Peter should prune it at all, and I don't understand the "need to prune it now and again". But since he acquired it lawfully and there are so few in private hands, he should go straight to the Royal Botanic Gardens for advice rather than ask us to speculate -- they took a four-figure sum from him, after all. I don't think licensing issues arise if there's no intention to sell the youngsters, unless there's some special measure in force in Aus for extreme cases like this. -- Mike. They're easily available here from nurseries at $50/50cmplant, and $90/100cm plant. |
Wollemi Pine
Peter Jason wrote: "Mike Lyle" wrote in message oups.com... Sacha wrote: On 29/11/06 16:15, in article , "Charlie Pridham" wrote: "Peter Jason" wrote in message ... I have a Wollemi Pine and need to prune it now & then. Can someone advise how to propagate from the cuttings? Regards Thought you needed a license to propagate them? Are you having to prune it because its inside? otherwise why bother? I didn't think any of the ones now being sold here or in Aus would be of a size to prune yet, including the one pinched from Kew! I find they're growing at half a metre a year in Oz and being sold almost as grow-anywhere-anyhow trees. There's a bit of a craze on, which I don't think will last even until they start being classed as nuisance trees in small gardens -- which I think will happen. And we just can't be certain of a tree's behaviour when we've only known about it for twelve years. This very mysterious. I really don't think Peter should prune it at all, and I don't understand the "need to prune it now and again". But since he acquired it lawfully and there are so few in private hands, he should go straight to the Royal Botanic Gardens for advice rather than ask us to speculate -- they took a four-figure sum from him, after all. I don't think licensing issues arise if there's no intention to sell the youngsters, unless there's some special measure in force in Aus for extreme cases like this. -- Mike. They're easily available here from nurseries at $50/50cmplant, and $90/100cm plant. That's amazing. I've just had a look at Forest NSW. I didn't realise they'd been able to bulk up the stock so quickly, and was stuck in the time when the few specimens available for sale were priced in the luxury bracket. Heynes in SA say it'll stand pretty hard pruning, but wait till winter: see their factsheet at: http://www.heyne.com.au/gardencentre...ing+fossil.htm I did a bit of a Google.au on "wollemi pine cuttings", but gave up after a few pages. It seems they do well, though you get different forms from tip and side cuttings. With a strong rooting hormone they apparently strike in about six months in coarse sand, after which you transfer to a conifer mix and pot on as necessary. -- Mike. |
Wollemi Pine
On 30/11/06 00:02, in article
, "Mike Lyle" wrote: snip That's amazing. I've just had a look at Forest NSW. I didn't realise they'd been able to bulk up the stock so quickly, and was stuck in the time when the few specimens available for sale were priced in the luxury bracket. Heynes in SA say it'll stand pretty hard pruning, but wait till winter: see their factsheet at: http://www.heyne.com.au/gardencentre...rchase+your+ow n+living+fossil.htm I did a bit of a Google.au on "wollemi pine cuttings", but gave up after a few pages. It seems they do well, though you get different forms from tip and side cuttings. With a strong rooting hormone they apparently strike in about six months in coarse sand, after which you transfer to a conifer mix and pot on as necessary. Like you, I'd thought they were still immensely expensive rarities though I do hope all those people buying Wollemi pines are quite sure that's what they've got! Apologies to Peter for my doubting Thomas act! I must admit that I find them very dull trees but it's undoubtedly a good thing if the world stocks of them can be increased to protect the species. -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ |
Wollemi Pine
On 30/11/06 11:13, in article ,
"Jennifer Sparkes" wrote: The message from Sacha contains these words: Like you, I'd thought they were still immensely expensive rarities though I do hope all those people buying Wollemi pines are quite sure that's what they've got! Apologies to Peter for my doubting Thomas act! I must admit that I find them very dull trees but it's undoubtedly a good thing if the world stocks of them can be increased to protect the species. Sacha Have a look at:- www.wollemipine.co.uk/ Jennifer Very interesting indeed, thanks Jennifer. I may have to revise my opinion as to its attractiveness but at £97 for a 3l pot, I think we'll wait for the price to drop a bit! -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ |
Wollemi Pine
"Sacha" wrote in message ... On 30/11/06 11:13, in article , "Jennifer Sparkes" wrote: The message from Sacha contains these words: Like you, I'd thought they were still immensely expensive rarities though I do hope all those people buying Wollemi pines are quite sure that's what they've got! Apologies to Peter for my doubting Thomas act! I must admit that I find them very dull trees but it's undoubtedly a good thing if the world stocks of them can be increased to protect the species. Sacha Have a look at:- www.wollemipine.co.uk/ Jennifer Very interesting indeed, thanks Jennifer. I may have to revise my opinion as to its attractiveness but at £97 for a 3l pot, I think we'll wait for the price to drop a bit! -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ You were right first time-they are dull. A better alternative is a Leylandii:-) |
Wollemi Pine
On 30/11/06 12:31, in article , "Rupert (W.Yorkshire)"
wrote: "Sacha" wrote in message ... On 30/11/06 11:13, in article , "Jennifer Sparkes" wrote: The message from Sacha contains these words: Like you, I'd thought they were still immensely expensive rarities though I do hope all those people buying Wollemi pines are quite sure that's what they've got! Apologies to Peter for my doubting Thomas act! I must admit that I find them very dull trees but it's undoubtedly a good thing if the world stocks of them can be increased to protect the species. Sacha Have a look at:- www.wollemipine.co.uk/ Jennifer Very interesting indeed, thanks Jennifer. I may have to revise my opinion as to its attractiveness but at £97 for a 3l pot, I think we'll wait for the price to drop a bit! -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ You were right first time-they are dull. A better alternative is a Leylandii:-) That's fighting talk - been at the mulled wine already? ;-) -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ |
Wollemi Pine
"Rupert (W.Yorkshire)" wrote in message ... "Sacha" wrote in message ... On 30/11/06 11:13, in article , "Jennifer Sparkes" wrote: The message from Sacha contains these words: Like you, I'd thought they were still immensely expensive rarities though I do hope all those people buying Wollemi pines are quite sure that's what they've got! Apologies to Peter for my doubting Thomas act! I must admit that I find them very dull trees but it's undoubtedly a good thing if the world stocks of them can be increased to protect the species. Sacha Have a look at:- www.wollemipine.co.uk/ Jennifer Very interesting indeed, thanks Jennifer. I may have to revise my opinion as to its attractiveness but at £97 for a 3l pot, I think we'll wait for the price to drop a bit! -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ You were right first time-they are dull. A better alternative is a Leylandii:-) I am reporting you to your ISP for being unduly provocative. Des |
Wollemi Pine
Rupert (W.Yorkshire) wrote:
Have a look at:- www.wollemipine.co.uk/ Jennifer Very interesting indeed, thanks Jennifer. I may have to revise my opinion as to its attractiveness but at £97 for a 3l pot, I think we'll wait for the price to drop a bit! Woah! I'm still getting the hang of Ginko! (Small offshoot in a P9) How many other vegetative Ceolocanths are there? Les -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ You were right first time-they are dull. A better alternative is a Leylandii:-) -- Remove Frontal Lobes to reply direct. By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out. (Richard Dawkins) http://armsofmorpheus.blogspot.com/ http://www.richarddawkins.net/index.php Les Hemmings a.a #2251 SA |
Wollemi Pine
On 1/12/06 18:44, in article , "Les
Hemmings" wrote: Rupert (W.Yorkshire) wrote: Have a look at:- www.wollemipine.co.uk/ Jennifer Very interesting indeed, thanks Jennifer. I may have to revise my opinion as to its attractiveness but at £97 for a 3l pot, I think we'll wait for the price to drop a bit! Woah! I'm still getting the hang of Ginko! (Small offshoot in a P9) How many other vegetative Ceolocanths are there? snip How do we know.............. -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ |
Wollemi Pine
"Peter Jason" wrote in message
It is about 1/2 meter tall and the top is growing fast. I don't have a garden and it lives in a pot on the patio. I just want to train it into an attractive shape because it has branches lower down that grow out horizontally. I think you wasted your money. The Wollemi Pine belongs to the Araucaria family and this family all grow into huge trees. The really spectacular thing about this family is their shape in that they grow enormously tall with stunning trunks and have superb pointy tops. There are many wonderful and enormous examples in older gardens in Oz (especially old farm gardens) that were planted in the 19th century and in many Victorian era cemeteries (such as Rookwood in Sydney). The official site for the Wollemi Pine says that the biggest one in the wild is 40 metres high so I don't fancy your chances of keeping it looking good as a pot plant given the preferred way that these trees grow. |
Wollemi Pine
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
I find they're growing at half a metre a year in Oz That's a different experience to my friends. They've had them nipped badly from frost and despite what the official site says, they are finding them rather more cold sensitive than reported. They'd be delighted to get any growth from the things (mind you we do live in a part of Oz that is cold in winter). and being sold almost as grow-anywhere-anyhow trees. Which I think is a mistake given that they are from the Araucaria family. This is a wonderful family of trees but owning a lot of land (like a farm) is required to do this family justice IMHO (and even then they must be carefully sited to be the star attraction which will look stunning at about 100 years old). |
Wollemi Pine
"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote in message ... "Peter Jason" wrote in message It is about 1/2 meter tall and the top is growing fast. I don't have a garden and it lives in a pot on the patio. I just want to train it into an attractive shape because it has branches lower down that grow out horizontally. I think you wasted your money. The Wollemi Pine belongs to the Araucaria family and this family all grow into huge trees. The really spectacular thing about this family is their shape in that they grow enormously tall with stunning trunks and have superb pointy tops. There are many wonderful and enormous examples in older gardens in Oz (especially old farm gardens) that were planted in the 19th century and in many Victorian era cemeteries (such as Rookwood in Sydney). The official site for the Wollemi Pine says that the biggest one in the wild is 40 metres high so I don't fancy your chances of keeping it looking good as a pot plant given the preferred way that these trees grow. I am probably the odd one out but I see nothing wrong with planting a tree you like and accepting that it will have to be removed long before maturity. There are plenty of wonderful examples of Araucaria around here which will eventually have to go. Even the most modest British trees are probably unsuitable for the average garden but they do enjoy a 20/30 year life before the chop. Must go now -I need to check the Sequoia:-) |
Wollemi Pine
"Rupert (W.Yorkshire)" wrote in message
"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote in message "Peter Jason" wrote in message It is about 1/2 meter tall and the top is growing fast. I don't have a garden and it lives in a pot on the patio. I just want to train it into an attractive shape because it has branches lower down that grow out horizontally. I think you wasted your money. The Wollemi Pine belongs to the Araucaria family and this family all grow into huge trees. The really spectacular thing about this family is their shape in that they grow enormously tall with stunning trunks and have superb pointy tops. There are many wonderful and enormous examples in older gardens in Oz (especially old farm gardens) that were planted in the 19th century and in many Victorian era cemeteries (such as Rookwood in Sydney). The official site for the Wollemi Pine says that the biggest one in the wild is 40 metres high so I don't fancy your chances of keeping it looking good as a pot plant given the preferred way that these trees grow. I am probably the odd one out but I see nothing wrong with planting a tree you like and accepting that it will have to be removed long before maturity. I have no problems with planting certain trees that will be removed long before maturity. I live on a farm in a very windy spot and have another farm also in a very windy spot so we plant pioneer trees to provide wind slowing and shelter for more tender species or as cattle shelter. These will mostly all be sacrificed at some stage as preferable species grow to a size where they can cope. These pioneers are the trees I put into the green weed category - like Radiata pines and acacias. I do however, have problems with buying certain trees knowing that they will not be treated with the due respect that I believe they deserve. That is why I have planted oaks and elms and other trees which will grow long after I'm worm food. Even in a severe drought we water them at the expense of the rest of the garden. Trees (and especially mature ones) cannot be replaced but the rest of it can. But then I love big trees and YMMV. Yesterday I visited a forest and an Arboretum and saw for the first time a grove of mature Sugar Pines (Pinus lambertiana) and it was love at first sight. I now have to find a spot for some of these amazing trees but I can't do that till the drought breaks as after 6 years of reduced rain there is no more water for more hungry mouths. There are plenty of wonderful examples of Araucaria around here which will eventually have to go. Even the most modest British trees are probably unsuitable for the average garden but they do enjoy a 20/30 year life before the chop. I recognise that it happens. Very sad TMWOT. There is nothing more majestic or impressive than a huge elm, oak or something similar and it's very sad to me to see trees chopped down because of poor planning. I visit certain open gardens repeatedly to see a number of the big trees which I know I won't be able to grow in my short remaining life. Must go now -I need to check the Sequoia:-) I hope you aren't checking it to plan it's demise. |
Wollemi Pine
"Rupert (W.Yorkshire)" writes
I am probably the odd one out but I see nothing wrong with planting a tree you like and accepting that it will have to be removed long before maturity. There are plenty of wonderful examples of Araucaria around here which will eventually have to go. Even the most modest British trees are probably unsuitable for the average garden but they do enjoy a 20/30 year life before the chop. Must go now -I need to check the Sequoia:-) No, you're not. I've argued this line on urg before. I don't see it's much different from growing hedges - better, perhaps, to let a tree have a few years of freedom, than to keep it 'cooped up' at 6ft high for ever ;-) -- Kay |
Wollemi Pine
On 4/12/06 18:35, in article , "K"
wrote: "Rupert (W.Yorkshire)" writes I am probably the odd one out but I see nothing wrong with planting a tree you like and accepting that it will have to be removed long before maturity. There are plenty of wonderful examples of Araucaria around here which will eventually have to go. Even the most modest British trees are probably unsuitable for the average garden but they do enjoy a 20/30 year life before the chop. Must go now -I need to check the Sequoia:-) No, you're not. I've argued this line on urg before. I don't see it's much different from growing hedges - better, perhaps, to let a tree have a few years of freedom, than to keep it 'cooped up' at 6ft high for ever ;-) Why grow it at all, if only for personally selfish reasons? Would we grow oaks to act as windbreaks, only to remove them to allow the laurels planted inside them to take over? Trees are not animals in the sense of allowing them 'a few years of freedom'. Many trees live for a very, very much longer time than any animal, including the human and IMO, should be planted with that in mind. -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ |
Wollemi Pine
"Sacha" wrote in message ... On 4/12/06 18:35, in article , "K" wrote: "Rupert (W.Yorkshire)" writes I am probably the odd one out but I see nothing wrong with planting a tree you like and accepting that it will have to be removed long before maturity. There are plenty of wonderful examples of Araucaria around here which will eventually have to go. Even the most modest British trees are probably unsuitable for the average garden but they do enjoy a 20/30 year life before the chop. Must go now -I need to check the Sequoia:-) No, you're not. I've argued this line on urg before. I don't see it's much different from growing hedges - better, perhaps, to let a tree have a few years of freedom, than to keep it 'cooped up' at 6ft high for ever ;-) Why grow it at all, if only for personally selfish reasons? Would we grow oaks to act as windbreaks, only to remove them to allow the laurels planted inside them to take over? Trees are not animals in the sense of allowing them 'a few years of freedom'. Many trees live for a very, very much longer time than any animal, including the human and IMO, should be planted with that in mind. -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ But we do grow most, if not all, things for selfish reasons. Vegetables don't stand a chance before they get noshed. Taking your example to extremes we would never remove any shrub,tree or perennial or even a weed. We manage our gardens and plots and as such we do interfere with nature. "Working with nature" -perhaps,maybe,sometimes but usually not. |
Wollemi Pine
I think you wasted your money. Not really. Where else can you buy a 150,000,000 year old bonsai? |
Wollemi Pine
"K" wrote in message ... "Rupert (W.Yorkshire)" writes I am probably the odd one out but I see nothing wrong with planting a tree you like and accepting that it will have to be removed long before maturity. There are plenty of wonderful examples of Araucaria around here which will eventually have to go. Even the most modest British trees are probably unsuitable for the average garden but they do enjoy a 20/30 year life before the chop. Must go now -I need to check the Sequoia:-) No, you're not. I've argued this line on urg before. I don't see it's much different from growing hedges - better, perhaps, to let a tree have a few years of freedom, than to keep it 'cooped up' at 6ft high for ever ;-) Kay Like this one at the Australian National Botanic Gardens? http://maeg.textdriven.com/wp-content/cage.jpg (from http://maeg.textdriven.com/?cat=2) :~)) Jenny |
Wollemi Pine
On 5/12/06 00:15, in article , "Rupert (W.Yorkshire)"
wrote: "Sacha" wrote in message ... snip Why grow it at all, if only for personally selfish reasons? Would we grow oaks to act as windbreaks, only to remove them to allow the laurels planted inside them to take over? Trees are not animals in the sense of allowing them 'a few years of freedom'. Many trees live for a very, very much longer time than any animal, including the human and IMO, should be planted with that in mind. But we do grow most, if not all, things for selfish reasons. Vegetables don't stand a chance before they get noshed. Taking your example to extremes we would never remove any shrub,tree or perennial or even a weed. We manage our gardens and plots and as such we do interfere with nature. "Working with nature" -perhaps,maybe,sometimes but usually not. I suppose I belong to the "plant trees for future generations" school of thought. And even though it's sometimes necessary, I feel real sadness when I see a tree being felled. I could never plant a tree telling myself it's just a temporary arrangement. We're getting some dieback in some of the older trees in our garden, like the beeches, which is my favourite tree. I dread the day we're told any of them have to come down and hope most sincerely I won't be around to see it happen! -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ |
Wollemi Pine
"Sacha" wrote in message ... On 5/12/06 00:15, in article , "Rupert (W.Yorkshire)" wrote: "Sacha" wrote in message ... snip Why grow it at all, if only for personally selfish reasons? Would we grow oaks to act as windbreaks, only to remove them to allow the laurels planted inside them to take over? Trees are not animals in the sense of allowing them 'a few years of freedom'. Many trees live for a very, very much longer time than any animal, including the human and IMO, should be planted with that in mind. But we do grow most, if not all, things for selfish reasons. Vegetables don't stand a chance before they get noshed. Taking your example to extremes we would never remove any shrub,tree or perennial or even a weed. We manage our gardens and plots and as such we do interfere with nature. "Working with nature" -perhaps,maybe,sometimes but usually not. I suppose I belong to the "plant trees for future generations" school of thought. And even though it's sometimes necessary, I feel real sadness when I see a tree being felled. I could never plant a tree telling myself it's just a temporary arrangement. We're getting some dieback in some of the older trees in our garden, like the beeches, which is my favourite tree. I dread the day we're told any of them have to come down and hope most sincerely I won't be around to see it happen! -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ Well if it's any consolation once a tree has been planted around here and attained either 2m in height or a girth of not much then the tree preservation man gets involved . He is of your school of thought and will make you underpin foundations before allowing anything to be chopped. A very nice man but not to be messed with. About now the tree surgeon man comes to remove dead wood from one huge beech (having got permission from the tpo people). I am reliably informed the tree is dying but will it will be towards the end of this century before it will be a goner. When something eventually goes it is a grand opportunity for a re-design. (Memories of Kew and the great storm) |
Wollemi Pine
On 5/12/06 11:57, in article , "Rupert (W.Yorkshire)"
wrote: "Sacha" wrote in message ... snip I suppose I belong to the "plant trees for future generations" school of thought. And even though it's sometimes necessary, I feel real sadness when I see a tree being felled. I could never plant a tree telling myself it's just a temporary arrangement. We're getting some dieback in some of the older trees in our garden, like the beeches, which is my favourite tree. I dread the day we're told any of them have to come down and hope most sincerely I won't be around to see it happen! Well if it's any consolation once a tree has been planted around here and attained either 2m in height or a girth of not much then the tree preservation man gets involved . He is of your school of thought and will make you underpin foundations before allowing anything to be chopped. A very nice man but not to be messed with. I remember being really horrified and even rather cross, with a friend of mine who wanted to chop down a huge old tree so as to build a conservatory. The local planning officer said he was going to get a tpo on it to prevent her doing so. While he went off into town to do just that, she got the builders to cut it down and when he came back she told him it had been cut down before he could put a tpo on it and too bad. About now the tree surgeon man comes to remove dead wood from one huge beech (having got permission from the tpo people). I am reliably informed the tree is dying but will it will be towards the end of this century before it will be a goner. That, at least, is something! I want us to plant something to replace the bit Cedrus atlanticus we have at the almost-bottom-of-the-garden but the problem is what and where. Too far back and it's too close to the wall and too far forward and it's in the shade of the cedar and competing for food, too! When something eventually goes it is a grand opportunity for a re-design. (Memories of Kew and the great storm) It certainly is but that's already happened in this garden. They had a big storm here in 1990 and a great many trees came down, including two cedars almost as big as the one we have left. Ray says that it let a lot of light into the garden! Whoever planted it up 150 years ago must have be a real dendronologist! -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ |
Wollemi Pine
Sacha writes
On 4/12/06 18:35, in article , "K" wrote: "Rupert (W.Yorkshire)" writes I am probably the odd one out but I see nothing wrong with planting a tree you like and accepting that it will have to be removed long before maturity. There are plenty of wonderful examples of Araucaria around here which will eventually have to go. Even the most modest British trees are probably unsuitable for the average garden but they do enjoy a 20/30 year life before the chop. Must go now -I need to check the Sequoia:-) No, you're not. I've argued this line on urg before. I don't see it's much different from growing hedges - better, perhaps, to let a tree have a few years of freedom, than to keep it 'cooped up' at 6ft high for ever ;-) Why grow it at all, if only for personally selfish reasons? Why else are any plants grown that aren't being grown for food or utility? Or do you mean that we grow our gardens to create a thing of beauty for others to enjoy? If so, why not grow a tree for the same reason, even if it has to be removed after 20 years or so when it outgrows its space? Would we grow oaks to act as windbreaks, only to remove them to allow the laurels planted inside them to take over? Of course not, but for purely practical reasons - the requirements of a nurse tree are that it is a) tougher b) grows more rapidly in the early stages than the thing it is nursing - neither of these apply to oaks as compared to laurels Trees are not animals in the sense of allowing them 'a few years of freedom'. Precisely. Which is why I find it hard to get worked up about planting trees to 'selfish' reasons. Is it possible to be selfish if the only ill effects of your 'selfishness' are on a non-sentient being? Many trees live for a very, very much longer time than any animal, including the human and IMO, should be planted with that in mind. IMO, too, but from a different perspective. -- Kay |
Wollemi Pine
"JennyC" wrote in message
"K" wrote in message I don't see it's much different from growing hedges - better, perhaps, to let a tree have a few years of freedom, than to keep it 'cooped up' at 6ft high for ever ;-) Kay Like this one at the Australian National Botanic Gardens? http://maeg.textdriven.com/wp-content/cage.jpg (from http://maeg.textdriven.com/?cat=2) An obvious plant theft prevetion device which will be removed when the tree gets too big to be carried away. The ANBG is in a very open position and any tea leaf could have away with a small tree very easily. |
Wollemi Pine
"Sacha" wrote in message
"Rupert (W.Yorkshire)" wrote: "Sacha" wrote in message snip Why grow it at all, if only for personally selfish reasons? Would we grow oaks to act as windbreaks, only to remove them to allow the laurels planted inside them to take over? Trees are not animals in the sense of allowing them 'a few years of freedom'. Many trees live for a very, very much longer time than any animal, including the human and IMO, should be planted with that in mind. But we do grow most, if not all, things for selfish reasons. Vegetables don't stand a chance before they get noshed. Taking your example to extremes we would never remove any shrub,tree or perennial or even a weed. We manage our gardens and plots and as such we do interfere with nature. "Working with nature" -perhaps,maybe,sometimes but usually not. I suppose I belong to the "plant trees for future generations" school of thought. And even though it's sometimes necessary, I feel real sadness when I see a tree being felled. I'm generally of the same view as you Sacha. Some trees do have to go sometimes but I get quite irritated when I see truly magnificent and significant trees being felled when a bit of simple thought could prevent it. This often applies to housing developments. A lovely tree goes and in its place go in shoddy housing stock which would so easily could have been given a slightly different configuration and the whole development would ahve been vastly improved by leaving the tree (shoddy building stock notwithstanding). The tree often goes simply because of devoloper greed rather than any real need. I could never plant a tree telling myself it's just a temporary arrangement. I do but then it's the weed trees that are sacrificial and they are there for protection of the more significant trees which will come on as the weed trees are culled. The other thing which we haven't yet gotten around to doing is to plant firewood trees specifically for culling or coppicing later - these will be Oz natives which grow like weeds anyway. We're getting some dieback in some of the older trees in our garden, like the beeches, which is my favourite tree. I dread the day we're told any of them have to come down and hope most sincerely I won't be around to see it happen! I sympathise. |
Wollemi Pine
"K" wrote in message
Sacha writes On 4/12/06 18:35, in article , "K" wrote: "Rupert (W.Yorkshire)" writes I am probably the odd one out but I see nothing wrong with planting a tree you like and accepting that it will have to be removed long before maturity. There are plenty of wonderful examples of Araucaria around here which will eventually have to go. Even the most modest British trees are probably unsuitable for the average garden but they do enjoy a 20/30 year life before the chop. Must go now -I need to check the Sequoia:-) No, you're not. I've argued this line on urg before. I don't see it's much different from growing hedges - better, perhaps, to let a tree have a few years of freedom, than to keep it 'cooped up' at 6ft high for ever ;-) Why grow it at all, if only for personally selfish reasons? Why else are any plants grown that aren't being grown for food or utility? Or do you mean that we grow our gardens to create a thing of beauty for others to enjoy? If so, why not grow a tree for the same reason, even if it has to be removed after 20 years or so when it outgrows its space? Given the range of trees of all shapes and sizes available then that sounds to me more like poor planning (but that comment should be read in context with comments that follow). We should also take account of gardener's ignorance and some gardeners simply plant in ignorance of eventual size. Also some gardeners are very subject to garden fashions that come and go and plant for the short term. And of course given that some gardeners only have a pocket hankerchief sized garden then they have more desire to fiddle and change things as they have less work to do and more chance of getting bored than those who have a big garden. I suspect that Sacha and I both have large gardens and that changes one's focus dramatically. It's all about the long term in a big garden as one doesn't have the time, resources or energy to do gardening that has a short term life and that especially includes tree planting. In a big garden you simply can't keep redoing things all the time. Trees are not animals in the sense of allowing them 'a few years of freedom'. Precisely. Which is why I find it hard to get worked up about planting trees to 'selfish' reasons. Is it possible to be selfish if the only ill effects of your 'selfishness' are on a non-sentient being? Many trees live for a very, very much longer time than any animal, including the human and IMO, should be planted with that in mind. IMO, too, but from a different perspective. I think your splitting up of Sacha's comments has removed the overall sense of what she wrote. I'm of the view of Sacha, but I don't own a pocket handkerchief sized garden and nor can I plant a certain class of tree without being aware that it will grow into a truly huge thing. I can plant pioneer and nursery species but I don't plant for fashion. I plant certain trees with the reasoning that I am planting for what I describe as "posterity". This means to me that the tree will still be there in a hundred or more years. More years ago than I care to remember, I came across a Japanese Haiku which best describes my attitude to the non nursery trees and although I can no longer put it into the correct Haiku form, it says: "A a man truly understands the meaning of life when he plants a tree under which he knows he will not sit". Having had 2 bouts of primary cancer, I asked myself at one stage, if money was no object, what would be the last thing that I would want to do on earth before dying. I decided that the only thing I would REALLY want to do, would be to buy a large parcel of land, to plant an arboretum and to then protect the land by some sort of covenant so that it could never be be subject to human interference. Like the man in the Haiku, I know I'm not immortal, but certain trees for me have an immortality that is truly magical. The Druids certainly knew a thing or two. |
Wollemi Pine
"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote And of course given that some gardeners only have a pocket hankerchief sized garden then they have more desire to fiddle and change things as they have less work to do and more chance of getting bored than those who have a big garden. big snip There is also the aspect of seeing the whole of a very small garden at one glance. In a big garden you can have things that have gone over , which are less visible. in a tiny space - mines 6mt by 8mt - you see every weed, dead twig etc. I tend to keep a lot of stuff in pots so that I can rearrange things as they go over. My one tree in the garden is a large Rhus in a huge pot :~)) It's has sentimental value as it came from a runner from our old house. And at least it's architectural in winter :~)) Jenny |
Wollemi Pine
"JennyC" wrote in message ... "Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote And of course given that some gardeners only have a pocket hankerchief sized garden then they have more desire to fiddle and change things as they have less work to do and more chance of getting bored than those who have a big garden. big snip There is also the aspect of seeing the whole of a very small garden at one glance. In a big garden you can have things that have gone over , which are less visible. in a tiny space - mines 6mt by 8mt - you see every weed, dead twig etc. I tend to keep a lot of stuff in pots so that I can rearrange things as they go over. My one tree in the garden is a large Rhus in a huge pot :~)) It's has sentimental value as it came from a runner from our old house. And at least it's architectural in winter :~)) Jenny That would be a compromise solution for the cut it down/let it grow debate. Trees in pots. Very big pot=very big tree. Before you are all overcome with enthusiasm for the suggestion I must warn you that the blooming things fall over in high winds. In my case a substantial palm thing, in a pot, did a good impression of a Catherine wheel and demolished several other plants and pots. Downright dangerous-must nail it down. |
Wollemi Pine
"Rupert (W.Yorkshire)" wrote in message ... "JennyC" wrote in message ... "Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote And of course given that some gardeners only have a pocket hankerchief sized garden then they have more desire to fiddle and change things as they have less work to do and more chance of getting bored than those who have a big garden. big snip There is also the aspect of seeing the whole of a very small garden at one glance. In a big garden you can have things that have gone over , which are less visible. in a tiny space - mines 6mt by 8mt - you see every weed, dead twig etc. I tend to keep a lot of stuff in pots so that I can rearrange things as they go over. My one tree in the garden is a large Rhus in a huge pot :~)) It's has sentimental value as it came from a runner from our old house. And at least it's architectural in winter :~)) Jenny That would be a compromise solution for the cut it down/let it grow debate. Trees in pots. Very big pot=very big tree. Before you are all overcome with enthusiasm for the suggestion I must warn you that the blooming things fall over in high winds. You are right............but we have a big hook in the wall and the pots is tied to that with a chain :~)) Jenny |
Wollemi Pine
On 6/12/06 00:02, in article
, "Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote: "K" wrote in message Sacha writes On 4/12/06 18:35, in article , "K" wrote: "Rupert (W.Yorkshire)" writes I am probably the odd one out but I see nothing wrong with planting a tree you like and accepting that it will have to be removed long before maturity. There are plenty of wonderful examples of Araucaria around here which will eventually have to go. Even the most modest British trees are probably unsuitable for the average garden but they do enjoy a 20/30 year life before the chop. Must go now -I need to check the Sequoia:-) No, you're not. I've argued this line on urg before. I don't see it's much different from growing hedges - better, perhaps, to let a tree have a few years of freedom, than to keep it 'cooped up' at 6ft high for ever ;-) Why grow it at all, if only for personally selfish reasons? Why else are any plants grown that aren't being grown for food or utility? Or do you mean that we grow our gardens to create a thing of beauty for others to enjoy? If so, why not grow a tree for the same reason, even if it has to be removed after 20 years or so when it outgrows its space? Given the range of trees of all shapes and sizes available then that sounds to me more like poor planning (but that comment should be read in context with comments that follow). I'd agree with you but at the same time I can see Kay's point but I simply cannot agree with it. It's too callous for me! We should also take account of gardener's ignorance and some gardeners simply plant in ignorance of eventual size. Also some gardeners are very subject to garden fashions that come and go and plant for the short term. I think quite a lot of people plant trees because a friend has one or they've seen it somewhere in a much larger garden and want one themselves. In my old house there was a young blue cedar and I had the horrible job of cutting it down because it was much too close to the house and when it was fully size, would have prevented anyone getting to the front door! That had been planted because the people next door had a much larger garden and had a blue cedar planted well away from the house but in line of sight with mine. I can only imagine that the original planter thought that two such trees fairly close together would one day look magnificent. But their thinking obviously hadn't gone further than that. And of course given that some gardeners only have a pocket hankerchief sized garden then they have more desire to fiddle and change things as they have less work to do and more chance of getting bored than those who have a big garden. I suspect that Sacha and I both have large gardens and that changes one's focus dramatically. It's all about the long term in a big garden as one doesn't have the time, resources or energy to do gardening that has a short term life and that especially includes tree planting. In a big garden you simply can't keep redoing things all the time. Again, I think that's true and not something I'd consciously thought of. We have roughly 3 acres of garden here and 3 of nursery. It's impossible to keep titivating the garden in a minute detail sort of way, so I suppose we do tend to think in terms of permanence. Apart from my last garden which was the smallest I've ever owned, I've always been involved with big gardens, so perhaps that has influenced my thinking in terms of the life of anything in them. Trees are not animals in the sense of allowing them 'a few years of freedom'. Precisely. Which is why I find it hard to get worked up about planting trees to 'selfish' reasons. Is it possible to be selfish if the only ill effects of your 'selfishness' are on a non-sentient being? Many trees live for a very, very much longer time than any animal, including the human and IMO, should be planted with that in mind. IMO, too, but from a different perspective. I think your splitting up of Sacha's comments has removed the overall sense of what she wrote. I'm of the view of Sacha, but I don't own a pocket handkerchief sized garden and nor can I plant a certain class of tree without being aware that it will grow into a truly huge thing. I can plant pioneer and nursery species but I don't plant for fashion. I plant certain trees with the reasoning that I am planting for what I describe as "posterity". This means to me that the tree will still be there in a hundred or more years. Yup. More years ago than I care to remember, I came across a Japanese Haiku which best describes my attitude to the non nursery trees and although I can no longer put it into the correct Haiku form, it says: "A a man truly understands the meaning of life when he plants a tree under which he knows he will not sit". Having had 2 bouts of primary cancer, I asked myself at one stage, if money was no object, what would be the last thing that I would want to do on earth before dying. I decided that the only thing I would REALLY want to do, would be to buy a large parcel of land, to plant an arboretum and to then protect the land by some sort of covenant so that it could never be be subject to human interference. Like the man in the Haiku, I know I'm not immortal, but certain trees for me have an immortality that is truly magical. The Druids certainly knew a thing or two. Lovely idea. A fairly close neighbour has done something similar and it's known locally as 'the plantation'. I don't know about the covenant thing in his case but it's a marvellous thing to do for future generations to enjoy. In a smaller way, we do the same thing. Having acquired the field behind what used to be the boundary of the nursery, Ray turned part of it into a badly-needed car park and another part is covered in Mypex for the outdoor potted up plants. But the rest is grassland and my stepson has planted an avenue of different types of oaks in it and at right angles to that we put in an avenue of limes about two years ago. In other parts of the field there many other types of tree dotted around here and there and though we can't allow it to turn into a wild flower meadow unfortunately, it is a real wildlife and bird haven and last year we even had a family of ferrets nesting in the vast compost heap up there! -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ |
Wollemi Pine
"Sacha" wrote snip I think quite a lot of people plant trees because a friend has one or they've seen it somewhere in a much larger garden and want one themselves. In my old house there was a young blue cedar and I had the horrible job of cutting it down because it was much too close to the house and when it was fully size, would have prevented anyone getting to the front door! That had been planted because the people next door had a much larger garden and had a blue cedar planted well away from the house but in line of sight with mine. I can only imagine that the original planter thought that two such trees fairly close together would one day look magnificent. But their thinking obviously hadn't gone further than that. Another reason gardeners can get choice of trees or spacing/position wrong is misleading info when they do look for advice. One thing that I blame is the tendency of some plant labels, and often also books, to give the height and spread of trees and shrubs as a rough size *after ten years* but neglect to give any idea of mature eventual size. The ten year bit isn't always stated, either. -- Sue |
Wollemi Pine
"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote And of course given that some gardeners only have a pocket hankerchief sized garden then they have more desire to fiddle and change things as they have less work to do and more chance of getting bored than those who have a big garden. That's an interesting concept. My experience is that most subjects become more interesting the more you know about them. And in a small garden, where you can keep on top of the work, there is the opportunity to get to know the detail in the way that wouldn't be possible in a larger garden. It's not necessarily so much a 'desire to fiddle' as the opportunity to do things in a more 'hands on' way. For example, I can hand weed our paving, which I couldn't do if I had a large expanse, which means I can spot the dianthus and harebells and leave them be, which I wouldn't be able to do if I had to use a herbicide. -- Kay |
Wollemi Pine
Farm1 writes
"Sacha" wrote in message I'm generally of the same view as you Sacha. Some trees do have to go sometimes but I get quite irritated when I see truly magnificent and significant trees being felled when a bit of simple thought could prevent it. I agree with you over the unnecessary felling of mature trees. But that doesn't stop me feeling OK about planting trees that I know will only be around for 10 or 20 years before they have to go - to my mind, that gives extra trees. Not all of us are lucky enough to be able to live in the countryside or in areas of large gardens, and an urban landscape consisting entirely of ornamental cherries, Sorbus and the like starts to feel a little 'samey' after a while. I know the copper beech which the church next door planted 8ft from our house may have to go eventually, but meanwhile I am happy to see it there and to get enjoyment from it. I'm not going to lose sleep because it won't make it to maturity. -- Kay |
Wollemi Pine
On 6/12/06 17:14, in article , "K"
wrote: snip I know the copper beech which the church next door planted 8ft from our house may have to go eventually, but meanwhile I am happy to see it there and to get enjoyment from it. I'm not going to lose sleep because it won't make it to maturity. Weep! Of all things a copper beech - one of the most glorious things known to mankind! BTW, does the church know this tree is not going to reach maturity? I ask because our churchyard has some trees in it right up against our wall and they look a bit dodgy to us. But the church administrators seem not to be too worried about this....... -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ |
Wollemi Pine
On 6/12/06 17:13, in article , "K"
wrote: "Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote And of course given that some gardeners only have a pocket hankerchief sized garden then they have more desire to fiddle and change things as they have less work to do and more chance of getting bored than those who have a big garden. That's an interesting concept. My experience is that most subjects become more interesting the more you know about them. And in a small garden, where you can keep on top of the work, there is the opportunity to get to know the detail in the way that wouldn't be possible in a larger garden. It's not necessarily so much a 'desire to fiddle' as the opportunity to do things in a more 'hands on' way. For example, I can hand weed our paving, which I couldn't do if I had a large expanse, which means I can spot the dianthus and harebells and leave them be, which I wouldn't be able to do if I had to use a herbicide. Yes, I think Farm1 made a really good point there. But I would say that you can get to know the detail in a large garden, too but you just can't get to deal with all of it with quite such immediacy. A sort of priority order has to come into managing a big garden. I certainly do think that people with large spaces just can't get too worked up about minutely scrupulous weeding because they'd spend their entire lives in the utmost frustration. OTOH, weeds are green and providing most get hoicked out as often as possible, the garden will go on its merry way. -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:12 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter