Rodger Whitlock wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 09:51:08 +0100, P&J wrote:

Now once the tree has been chopped down - any ideas how usful the wood will
be ? The tree is about 10 years old & approx 30 feet high.

I am considering some uses fo the wood (although the tree surgeon can take
it away). So far I was thinking these possilities.
- hiring a shredder to create some mulch
- firewood as we have no smoke restrictions

Any other ideas ?

Poplar wood, like willow, is very pure cellulose with little
lignin in it. If you dry it thoroughly -- give it a couple of
years' storage under cover -- it will burn with a clear, fast,
hot flame. Nice when you want a fire that doesn't leave glowing
embers in the fireplace overnight.

We have been burning the wood from several aspen trees we had felled a
couple of years ago quite successfully in our wood burning stove.
It's not the *best* wood for burning but, well dried, it's OK (and
free in our case!).

--
Chris Green )

Rodger Whitlock wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 09:51:08 +0100, P&J wrote:

Now once the tree has been chopped down - any ideas how usful the wood will
be ? The tree is about 10 years old & approx 30 feet high.

I am considering some uses fo the wood (although the tree surgeon can take
it away). So far I was thinking these possilities.
- hiring a shredder to create some mulch
- firewood as we have no smoke restrictions

Any other ideas ?

Poplar wood, like willow, is very pure cellulose with little
lignin in it. If you dry it thoroughly -- give it a couple of
years' storage under cover -- it will burn with a clear, fast,
hot flame. Nice when you want a fire that doesn't leave glowing
embers in the fireplace overnight.

We have been burning the wood from several aspen trees we had felled a
couple of years ago quite successfully in our wood burning stove.
It's not the *best* wood for burning but, well dried, it's OK (and
free in our case!).

--
Chris Green )

In article , P&J
writes
The thanks for the responses regarding the poison - I will have a chat with
the tree surgeon & find out a bit more about the poison issue.

Now once the tree has been chopped down - any ideas how usful the wood will
be ? The tree is about 10 years old & approx 30 feet high.

I am considering some uses fo the wood (although the tree surgeon can take
it away). So far I was thinking these possilities.
- hiring a shredder to create some mulch
- firewood as we have no smoke restrictions

Any other ideas ?

I'm surprised no one has mentioned giving it to a wood turner to make
things from!!!!!
--
Jane Ransom in Lancaster.
I won't respond to private emails that are on topic for urg
but if you need to email me for any other reason,
put jandg dot demon dot co dot uk where you see deadspam.com

In article ,
Jane Ransom writes:
|
| I'm surprised no one has mentioned giving it to a wood turner to make
| things from!!!!!

Poplar? It's used for making clogs, but is ghastly for turning.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Kay Easton wrote in message ...
In article , Mike Lyle
writes
Kay Easton wrote in message news:XCFUw8K1McU$Ewmx@sc
arboro.demon.co.uk...
In article , Mike Lyle
writes

Time to mount my trusty hobby-horse again! Used as mulch, timber waste
will take nitrogen out of your soil as it rots, and could encourage
harmful fungi.

Are you sure of that point? Fungi tend to be fairly fussy about their
requirements, and I wouldn't have thought that most species which would
enjoy the rotting wood would be inclined to attack living trees, which
is what I presume you mean by 'harmful'?

I said "could", not "will", but I wouldn't risk it. The choice is:
throw it away? a bit of reasonable firewood? or a not-very-attractive
mulch which at least one other gardener isn't happy about on hygiene
grounds?

Nick is very confident about this; but I'd rather be cautious when
suggesting what to do in somebody else's garden. Leaving a few twigs
about just isn't the same issue as spreading a layer of undecayed wood
chips over your flower-beds. Even if there's no real danger from
fungi, the slugs will probably love it.

It doesn't feel like good gardening practice to use an
unrotted mulch, even if it doesn't, as I fear this could, help honey
fungus or something to get a foothold.

How harmful exactly is honey fungus? It's one of our commonest fungi,
present in most of our woodland, one of the top 10 fungi most often
found on fungus forays. If it were as dangerous as some people say,
wouldn't most of our woodland be dead by now?

I've always assumed that it's a matter of ecological balance. A garden
is a small artificial intensive environment where everything is
encouraged to happen faster, and where a few failures are conspicuous.
Garden plants are also mostly the result of a lot of breeding: like
domestic breeds of dogs, few of them would be able to sustain a
population in the wild.

In the garden we encourage conditions which many pests and diseases
thrive in: lush growth, same species crowded together, high nutrient
levels, that kind of thing.


It would take ages to rot it in a heap with a bought-in
source of nitrogen,

No, it doesn't. In a mixed heap it doesn't slow the process at all.

We're talking about a whole thirty-foot tree, not the litter from the
rabbit-hutch!

Yeah, fair point. I was forgetting that.

Will there be enough other material to make an effective
mixed heap? It can't rot without nitrogen, and that nitrogen must come
from somewhere. The bigger the chips the tree is shredded into, the
longer the process will take. I'm not just spouting old husbands'
tales, I'm trying to be logical.

I'm trying to balance what you're saying against one of the main
problems facing our native flora, which is that we've been chucking so
much nitrogen around for so many years that our meadows are so rich that
many of our native flowers just can't compete. the first step in
creating a wildflower meadow is, in most cases, spending several years
*reducing* the nitrogen level.

OK, you're talking gardening, I'm talking wildflowers - but is reducing
the nitrogen level of our gardens really going to be an utter disaster?

No, personally I don't think so: I use the lowest possible level of
inputs in my own garden, and use as many wild forms as I can. The
result looks great to me, but it isn't what everybody wants. I'm fond
of saying I even planted the weeds!

Anyhow, bringing in nitrogen to help material rot is different from
bringing it in to pile on the beds. If I've got my science right, most
of it will be released into the atmosphere, rather than retained in
the compost.

Mike.

"Rusty Hinge" wrote in message
...
The message
from "P&J" contains these words:

Now once the tree has been chopped down - any ideas how usful the wood
will
be ? The tree is about 10 years old & approx 30 feet high.

I am considering some uses fo the wood (although the tree surgeon can
take
it away). So far I was thinking these possilities.
- hiring a shredder to create some mulch

No. Unsightly

Why do you consider chippings or sawdust to be more unsightly than the
faeces of a horse?

and will in time take nitrogen from the soil.

Which is eventually returned to the soil with some small interest.

Mind you,
that would help in suppressing weeds....

- firewood as we have no smoke restrictions

Yes, by far the better option.

Any other ideas ?

Poplar is used to molish the wooden part of matches....

Franz

On 1 Sep 2003 07:43:36 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:

~In article ,
~Rusty Hinge wrote:
~The message
~from "P&J" contains these words:
~
~ Now once the tree has been chopped down - any ideas how usful the wood will
~ be ? The tree is about 10 years old & approx 30 feet high.
~
~ I am considering some uses fo the wood (although the tree surgeon can take
~ it away). So far I was thinking these possilities.
~ - hiring a shredder to create some mulch
~
~No. Unsightly and will in time take nitrogen from the soil. Mind you,
~that would help in suppressing weeds....
~
~Only temporarily. It will then restore it.


ok I have to chip (sorry...) in here

About 18 months ago I persuaded a local tree surgeon to give me a
shredded ash tree as a mulch for my allotment orchard area (it saved
him from having to pay to dispose of it). I ended up with a 4" mulch
which has gone to a nice dark brown over the months and has managed to
suppress the annual weeds. Before it went down I had a jungle of
waist-high waving grass, various thistles etc. in summer, so I gave
the plot a good weeding over and had it delivered mid-April before
the weeds took off.

Pink bindweed and creeping cinquefoil are still being a pain but the
rest have gone very nicely. I expect that I'll have to get more come
next spring, but would have no hesitation. I have had bumper crops of
gooseberries and currants, and last year, apples (biennial trees) so
can't say I noticed any bad effects. OK so I did empty a packet of
sulphate of potash onto the whole area (7x7m) to encourage fruiting,
but haven't added any nitrogen yet.

I thought it also looked and smelled nice, too, and makes a much
better surface for walking on than mud :-)

If you want to look at photos of before and after, mail me.


--
jane

Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone,
you may still exist but you have ceased to live.
Mark Twain

Please remove onmaps from replies, thanks!

In article , Mike Lyle
writes

Nick is very confident about this; but I'd rather be cautious when
suggesting what to do in somebody else's garden. Leaving a few twigs
about just isn't the same issue as spreading a layer of undecayed wood
chips over your flower-beds. Even if there's no real danger from
fungi, the slugs will probably love it.

How does the spreading of chips from your own tree differ from a
similarly thick and extensive bark chip mulch? Or would you avoid that
too?

You've also raised another interesting point, that in effect anything
one says in urg can be considered as suggesting what to do in someone
else's garden. One could take the safe view, of not suggesting anything
with the slightest risk .. or of suggesting only standard practice as
expounded in reputable text books (or perhaps as expounded by the RHS) -
I'm not sure what would be regarded as 'standard practice'.

Or one could take the view, as with the rest of the net, that anything
published is our personal view, and it is for the reader to decide
themselves what to advice to follow, and their responsibility (not mine)
if it doesn't work for them.

If you take the 'safe' approach, then urg is merely an alternative to
looking up the standard approach in a book - in other words, we are
merely providing a service to those who, for whatever reason, choose to
come to us for advice rather than go to a book or to the RHS or
whatever. Surely people want from urg something they can't get from
other sources? Or am I wrong on this?

I've always regarded urg as a joint learning experience - we all of us
add our own experience, sometimes challenging the accepted approach, and
as a result we all learn something new, that perhaps can't be found from
other sources. Urg gives something that can't be found elsewhere.

I've always assumed that it's a matter of ecological balance. A garden
is a small artificial intensive environment where everything is
encouraged to happen faster, and where a few failures are conspicuous.
Garden plants are also mostly the result of a lot of breeding: like
domestic breeds of dogs, few of them would be able to sustain a
population in the wild.

In the garden we encourage conditions which many pests and diseases
thrive in: lush growth, same species crowded together, high nutrient
levels, that kind of thing.

Ah - your garden differs from mine (1)! Mine has the lush growth, in the
sense that every inch of soil is covered, but I don't have lots of the
same species crowded together and I don't try to push up the nutrient
levels. And I have several species of very beautiful fungi which add
interest at this time of year.

(1) I see from the rest of your post (snipped) that your garden is more
akin to mine .. ie neither is the borders-full-of-bright-bedding-plant
style.


--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

In article ,
Kay Easton writes:
|
| You've also raised another interesting point, that in effect anything
| one says in urg can be considered as suggesting what to do in someone
| else's garden. One could take the safe view, of not suggesting anything
| with the slightest risk .. or of suggesting only standard practice as
| expounded in reputable text books (or perhaps as expounded by the RHS) -
| I'm not sure what would be regarded as 'standard practice'.

It is also a complete delusion that 'inaction' is necessarily safer
than 'action'. Even not taking a decision is taking the decision
to leave matters to others or events.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article , Nick Maclaren
writes

In article ,
Jane Ransom writes:
|
| I'm surprised no one has mentioned giving it to a wood turner to make
| things from!!!!!

Poplar? It's used for making clogs, but is ghastly for turning.

I'm sure in our local market we have stuff made from poplar. In fact, I
think there isn't one sort of tree that doesn't have something made from
it!!!!
--
Jane Ransom in Lancaster.
I won't respond to private emails that are on topic for urg
but if you need to email me for any other reason,
put jandg dot demon dot co dot uk where you see deadspam.com

In article , Kay Easton
writes

If you take the 'safe' approach, then urg is merely an alternative to
looking up the standard approach in a book

One infers from this statement that half the people using newsgroups are
merely seeking advice and the other half giving it!!!!!!!!

I thought the idea of a newsgroup is that it is an international
*discussion* forum not advice bureau! ie we discuss our points of view -
this may occasionally mean asking a question and assessing the opinions
of the various people who decide to join in the discussion . . . but no
one is 'obliged' to give an opinion!!!!!!

I know, I know, Kay your later paragraphs hint at this but don't say
it explicitly.


--
Jane Ransom in Lancaster.
I won't respond to private emails that are on topic for urg
but if you need to email me for any other reason,
put jandg dot demon dot co dot uk where you see deadspam.com

Kay Easton wrote in message ...
In article , Mike Lyle
writes

Nick is very confident about this; but I'd rather be cautious when
suggesting what to do in somebody else's garden. Leaving a few twigs
about just isn't the same issue as spreading a layer of undecayed wood
chips over your flower-beds. Even if there's no real danger from
fungi, the slugs will probably love it.

How does the spreading of chips from your own tree differ from a
similarly thick and extensive bark chip mulch? Or would you avoid that
too?

Bargepole, absolute bargepole! Friable stuff only as far as I'm
concerned. And I also mentioned the aesthetic aspect: at least the
semi-composted bark they flog looks nice if you like that kind of
thing (which I don't, really). Raw woodchips, like when the Council
have just done some trees beside the dual carriageway, look like raw
woodchips. And birds will probably scratch it onto the paths and the
lawn in search of the invertebrates sheltering in it.

You've also raised another interesting point, that in effect anything
one says in urg can be considered as suggesting what to do in someone
else's garden. One could take the safe view, of not suggesting anything
with the slightest risk .. or of suggesting only standard practice as
expounded in reputable text books (or perhaps as expounded by the RHS) -
I'm not sure what would be regarded as 'standard practice'.

Well, we *were* making suggestions about somebody else's garden: he
asked us to. I was not only being careful, but saying why; and there's
been enough contrary opinion too. I don't mind suggesting, e.g.,
sowing Chinese cabbage seeds a month late, but it'd be very wrong if I
didn't point out that it might result in failure. People presumably
ask these questions because they don't know, and it isn't in their
books, or they just want to kick the ideas about a bit and see what
other gardeners reckon. If what I reckon agrees with the conventional
wisdom, surely you don't think that means I shouldn't bother saying
it? How do I know an enquirer *knows* the conventional wisdom?

[...]
Surely people want from urg something they can't get from
other sources? Or am I wrong on this?

Of course you're not wrong! (Well, mostly: some questions are straight
book stuff.) What we get here, thank God, is discussion. Like this.
But almost every thread, including this one, shows that we don't
always read urg too carefully.

I've always regarded urg as a joint learning experience - we all of us
add our own experience, sometimes challenging the accepted approach, and
as a result we all learn something new, that perhaps can't be found from
other sources. Urg gives something that can't be found elsewhere.

Certainly does.
[...]

In the garden we encourage conditions which many pests and diseases
thrive in: lush growth, same species crowded together, high nutrient
levels, that kind of thing.

Ah - your garden differs from mine (1)! Mine has the lush growth, in the
sense that every inch of soil is covered, but I don't have lots of the
same species crowded together and I don't try to push up the nutrient
levels. And I have several species of very beautiful fungi which add
interest at this time of year.

(1) I see from the rest of your post (snipped) that your garden is more
akin to mine .. ie neither is the borders-full-of-bright-bedding-plant
style.

Well, there you go: see what I meant above? Not as bad as when I said
best not to use poison on the tree-stump, but if he had to, then he
could safely do xxx; I immediately got jumped on by somebody saying in
effect "You prat! He said he was worried about poison!" Well, der...

Onwards and upwards, as that irritating man says on that programme I
can't bear,
Mike.

(Nick Maclaren) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Kay Easton writes:
|
| You've also raised another interesting point, that in effect anything
| one says in urg can be considered as suggesting what to do in someone
| else's garden. One could take the safe view, of not suggesting anything
| with the slightest risk .. or of suggesting only standard practice as
| expounded in reputable text books (or perhaps as expounded by the RHS) -
| I'm not sure what would be regarded as 'standard practice'.

It is also a complete delusion that 'inaction' is necessarily safer
than 'action'. Even not taking a decision is taking the decision
to leave matters to others or events.

Que? Did somebody say something about not taking any action about the poplar tree?

Mike.

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Lyle
writes

Nick is very confident about this; but I'd rather be cautious when
suggesting what to do in somebody else's garden. Leaving a few twigs
about just isn't the same issue as spreading a layer of undecayed wood
chips over your flower-beds. Even if there's no real danger from
fungi, the slugs will probably love it.

How does the spreading of chips from your own tree differ from a
similarly thick and extensive bark chip mulch? Or would you avoid that
too?

You've also raised another interesting point, that in effect anything
one says in urg can be considered as suggesting what to do in someone
else's garden. One could take the safe view, of not suggesting anything
with the slightest risk .. or of suggesting only standard practice as
expounded in reputable text books (or perhaps as expounded by the RHS) -
I'm not sure what would be regarded as 'standard practice'.

Or one could take the view, as with the rest of the net, that anything
published is our personal view, and it is for the reader to decide
themselves what to advice to follow, and their responsibility (not mine)
if it doesn't work for them.

If you take the 'safe' approach, then urg is merely an alternative to
looking up the standard approach in a book - in other words, we are
merely providing a service to those who, for whatever reason, choose to
come to us for advice rather than go to a book or to the RHS or
whatever. Surely people want from urg something they can't get from
other sources? Or am I wrong on this?

I am in total agreement with Kay about what I expect to get from and give
to this newsgroup.

[snip]

Franz

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
om...
Kay Easton wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Lyle
writes
Kay Easton wrote in message
news:XCFUw8K1McU$Ewmx@sc
arboro.demon.co.uk...
In article , Mike
Lyle
writes

Time to mount my trusty hobby-horse again! Used as mulch, timber
waste
will take nitrogen out of your soil as it rots, and could encourage
harmful fungi.

Are you sure of that point? Fungi tend to be fairly fussy about their
requirements, and I wouldn't have thought that most species which
would
enjoy the rotting wood would be inclined to attack living trees,
which
is what I presume you mean by 'harmful'?

I said "could", not "will", but I wouldn't risk it. The choice is:
throw it away? a bit of reasonable firewood? or a not-very-attractive
mulch which at least one other gardener isn't happy about on hygiene
grounds?

Nick is very confident about this; but I'd rather be cautious when
suggesting what to do in somebody else's garden. Leaving a few twigs
about just isn't the same issue as spreading a layer of undecayed wood
chips over your flower-beds. Even if there's no real danger from
fungi, the slugs will probably love it.

It doesn't feel like good gardening practice to use an
unrotted mulch, even if it doesn't, as I fear this could, help honey
fungus or something to get a foothold.

How harmful exactly is honey fungus? It's one of our commonest fungi,
present in most of our woodland, one of the top 10 fungi most often
found on fungus forays. If it were as dangerous as some people say,
wouldn't most of our woodland be dead by now?

I've always assumed that it's a matter of ecological balance. A garden
is a small artificial intensive environment where everything is
encouraged to happen faster, and where a few failures are conspicuous.
Garden plants are also mostly the result of a lot of breeding: like
domestic breeds of dogs, few of them would be able to sustain a
population in the wild.

In the garden we encourage conditions which many pests and diseases
thrive in: lush growth, same species crowded together, high nutrient
levels, that kind of thing.


It would take ages to rot it in a heap with a bought-in
source of nitrogen,

No, it doesn't. In a mixed heap it doesn't slow the process at all.

We're talking about a whole thirty-foot tree, not the litter from the
rabbit-hutch!

Yeah, fair point. I was forgetting that.

Will there be enough other material to make an effective
mixed heap? It can't rot without nitrogen, and that nitrogen must come
from somewhere. The bigger the chips the tree is shredded into, the
longer the process will take. I'm not just spouting old husbands'
tales, I'm trying to be logical.

I'm trying to balance what you're saying against one of the main
problems facing our native flora, which is that we've been chucking so
much nitrogen around for so many years that our meadows are so rich that
many of our native flowers just can't compete. the first step in
creating a wildflower meadow is, in most cases, spending several years
*reducing* the nitrogen level.

OK, you're talking gardening, I'm talking wildflowers - but is reducing
the nitrogen level of our gardens really going to be an utter disaster?

No, personally I don't think so: I use the lowest possible level of
inputs in my own garden, and use as many wild forms as I can. The
result looks great to me, but it isn't what everybody wants. I'm fond
of saying I even planted the weeds!

Anyhow, bringing in nitrogen to help material rot is different from
bringing it in to pile on the beds. If I've got my science right, most
of it will be released into the atmosphere, rather than retained in
the compost.

Speaking from deep ignorance:
I thought the nitrogen is usually applied as soluble nitrogen-containing
inorganic salts.
I thought the fungi which decompose the wood absorbed such nitrogen as they
need, leaving the rest to be washed into the soil. From there the existing
plants take what they need, and if any is left over (in which case you
applied too much) it washes out into the groundwater. In what form would it
go into the atmosphere? Which life form is going to convert chemically
bound nitrogen in solution into nitrogen in a gaseous form?

Franz