Hi all.

I moved into a house where the garden had laid untouched for 20years. After clearing away all the brambles I am left with a fine specimin of a baby oak. I'm not sure how old it is, but the trunk is apprx 6ft tall, with the upper branches taking it to almost 10ft or so.

I'm not sure if I need to do pruning in order to encourage correct growth - some of the upper branches are 6ft long, almost totally horizontal, and Im scared that as they get bigger, they will be unable to support their own weight.

Can anyone advise on how/if I should prune any of these branches ?

Many thanks.
Joe.

In article ,
Broadback wrote:
Joe Shmoe wrote:

I moved into a house where the garden had laid untouched for 20years.
After clearing away all the brambles I am left with a fine specimen of a
baby oak. I'm not sure how old it is, but the trunk is apprx 6ft tall,
with the upper branches taking it to almost 10ft or so.

I'm not sure if I need to do pruning in order to encourage correct
growth - some of the upper branches are 6ft long, almost totally
horizontal, and Im scared that as they get bigger, they will be unable
to support their own weight.

Can anyone advise on how/if I should prune any of these branches ?

Generally Oaks are not pruned. However in days of yore they were, the
lower branches were removed to encourage a long straight trunk,
otherwise no mast and no sailing ships!

Er, no. Firstly, oak was never or almost never used for masts and,
secondly, it is one of the species that was coppiced (not as often
as some others, true).

Oaks can be pruned at most times of year, but probably not too hard
in the summer. However, removing or shortening branches is fine.
As you say, that is not usually done, but it can be.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

wrote:
In article ,
Broadback wrote:
Joe Shmoe wrote:

I moved into a house where the garden had laid untouched for
20years. After clearing away all the brambles I am left with a fine
specimen of a baby oak. I'm not sure how old it is, but the trunk
is apprx 6ft tall, with the upper branches taking it to almost 10ft
or so.

I'm not sure if I need to do pruning in order to encourage correct
growth - some of the upper branches are 6ft long, almost totally
horizontal, and Im scared that as they get bigger, they will be
unable to support their own weight.

Can anyone advise on how/if I should prune any of these branches ?

Generally Oaks are not pruned. However in days of yore they were, the
lower branches were removed to encourage a long straight trunk,
otherwise no mast and no sailing ships!

Er, no. Firstly, oak was never or almost never used for masts and,
secondly, it is one of the species that was coppiced (not as often
as some others, true).

Oaks can be pruned at most times of year, but probably not too hard
in the summer. However, removing or shortening branches is fine.
As you say, that is not usually done, but it can be.

I don't like the idea, personally. But does the OP really /want/ an oak
tree in his garden? Or, to put it another way, is the garden big enough
for the tree's eventual size?

--
Mike.

Mike Lyle wrote:
wrote:
In ,
wrote:
Joe Shmoe wrote:

I moved into a house where the garden had laid untouched for
20years. After clearing away all the brambles I am left with a fine
specimen of a baby oak. I'm not sure how old it is, but the trunk
is apprx 6ft tall, with the upper branches taking it to almost 10ft
or so.

I'm not sure if I need to do pruning in order to encourage correct
growth - some of the upper branches are 6ft long, almost totally
horizontal, and Im scared that as they get bigger, they will be
unable to support their own weight.

Can anyone advise on how/if I should prune any of these branches ?

Generally Oaks are not pruned. However in days of yore they were, the
lower branches were removed to encourage a long straight trunk,
otherwise no mast and no sailing ships!

Er, no. Firstly, oak was never or almost never used for masts and,
secondly, it is one of the species that was coppiced (not as often
as some others, true).

Oaks can be pruned at most times of year, but probably not too hard
in the summer. However, removing or shortening branches is fine.
As you say, that is not usually done, but it can be.

I don't like the idea, personally. But does the OP really /want/ an oak
tree in his garden? Or, to put it another way, is the garden big enough
for the tree's eventual size?

If he lives in or near North Staffordshire a trip up Whitmoor Road
(known locally as Dog Kennel Lane) he might change his mind about
keeping it, though he will not be alive by the time it gets that big!

Hi all, so the general concensus is that I can leave the long branches and the tree shouldn't suffer ?

I prefer how it looks currently, and didn't want to prune it, but several people who have seen the tree have commented and said it should be pruned back to a more othodox shape.


The tree is 15m away from the nearest house which, while not ideal, shouldn't cause me any problems in my lifetime (i hope).

Does anyone know what the growth rate for this tree is? I'm looking forward to it getting bigger.

oh - one more thing....

is it true that Oaks only start producing Acorns at 20years old ?

If so, mine does produce some small ones, so I guess its at least 20 years ?

Does that apply to all oak species as I cant tell which one mine is ?

In article ,
Joe Shmoe wrote:

Hi all, so the general concensus is that I can leave the long branches
and the tree shouldn't suffer ?

Or prune them, and it won't suffer either :-) Your choice.

I prefer how it looks currently, and didn't want to prune it, but
several people who have seen the tree have commented and said it should
be pruned back to a more othodox shape.

You can let nature take its course - oaks are used to that.

The tree is 15m away from the nearest house which, while not ideal,
shouldn't cause me any problems in my lifetime (i hope).

Does anyone know what the growth rate for this tree is? I'm looking
forward to it getting bigger.

Depends on conditions, and how much that conifer reduces the water
and sun it receives. Typically 6-9" a year.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:43:46 +0000, Joe Shmoe
wrote:


Hi all, so the general concensus is that I can leave the long branches
and the tree shouldn't suffer ?

I prefer how it looks currently, and didn't want to prune it, but
several people who have seen the tree have commented and said it should
be pruned back to a more othodox shape.

Nature does not prune its adventitious trees except by natural weather
factors,high winds, snow burden etc.


Leave it alone. I would.


--
(¯`·. ®óñ© © ²°¹° .·´¯)

Joe Shmoe wrote:
Hi all, so the general concensus is that I can leave the long branches
and the tree shouldn't suffer ?

I prefer how it looks currently, and didn't want to prune it, but
several people who have seen the tree have commented and said it
should be pruned back to a more othodox shape.


The tree is 15m away from the nearest house which, while not ideal,
shouldn't cause me any problems in my lifetime (i hope).

Does anyone know what the growth rate for this tree is? I'm looking
forward to it getting bigger.

50 feet from a house? (Perhaps not /your/ house..? What about paths and
drains?) No, it won't be a nuisance in our lifetimes, but one should
garden or farm as if one's going to live for ever, so I'd have it out
before it gets any more lovable. Slow-growing of course, but this is a
forest tree, not a domestic shrub.

--
Mike.

Mike Lyle wrote:
Joe Shmoe wrote:
Hi all, so the general concensus is that I can leave the long branches
and the tree shouldn't suffer ?

I prefer how it looks currently, and didn't want to prune it, but
several people who have seen the tree have commented and said it
should be pruned back to a more othodox shape.


The tree is 15m away from the nearest house which, while not ideal,
shouldn't cause me any problems in my lifetime (i hope).

Does anyone know what the growth rate for this tree is? I'm looking
forward to it getting bigger.

50 feet from a house? (Perhaps not /your/ house..? What about paths and
drains?) No, it won't be a nuisance in our lifetimes, but one should
garden or farm as if one's going to live for ever, so I'd have it out
before it gets any more lovable. Slow-growing of course, but this is a
forest tree, not a domestic shrub.

Also, especially as oaks are under threat, it won't be long before they
slap a preservation order on it, then you will neither be able to remove
or prune it!

Good job too....... we need more big trees.

I'm glad that something will remain, long after I am gone

In 50 years time, the new owners will say " what kind of idiot planted an oak tree in his garden"


har har har.

Broadback wrote:
Also, especially as oaks are under threat, it won't be long before they
slap a preservation order on it, then you will neither be able to remove
or prune it!

They are? I've just walked home from the station, about 3/4 a mile, and
there were several large oaks, and about a billion little baby oaks!

wrote:
Broadback wrote:
Also, especially as oaks are under threat, it won't be long before
they slap a preservation order on it, then you will neither be able
to remove or prune it!

They are? I've just walked home from the station, about 3/4 a mile,
and there were several large oaks, and about a billion little baby
oaks!

Nobody said they were just evaporating. Check out /Phytophthera ramorum/
at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_oak_death

for the fright story.

--
Mike.