Can you please take a look at some photographs placed on our forums please
(below).
We are looking to find out a bit more about this type of tree and the damage
it can do.

http://www.gmails.co.uk/forums/showthread.php4?p=246#post246

--
John
Building our caravanning web site and forums...
www.gmails.co.uk/forums

John & Lisa wrote:
> Can you please take a look at some photographs placed on our forums please
> (below).
> We are looking to find out a bit more about this type of tree and the damage
> it can do.
> http://www.gmails.co.uk/forums/showthread.php4?p=246#post246

It's a beautiful silver birch.

"La Puce" <helene [at] rudlin.co.uk> wrote in message

> John & Lisa wrote:
> > Can you please take a look at some photographs placed on our forums
please
> > (below).
> > We are looking to find out a bit more about this type of tree and the
damage
> > it can do.
> > http://www.gmails.co.uk/forums/showthread.php4?p=246#post246
>
> It's a beautiful silver birch.
>
--------------------------

Ah, thanks for the answer on the tree type.
Would not agree on the beatiful bit though, at least not while it is
dropping shed fulls of debris all over my front drive and caravan :-)
--
John
Building our caravanning web site and forums...
www.gmails.co.uk/forums

John & Lisa wrote:
> Ah, thanks for the answer on the tree type.
> Would not agree on the beatiful bit though, at least not while it is
> dropping shed fulls of debris all over my front drive and caravan :-)

But ... but ... caravaning is all about living with nature. Move the
caravan!!! ;o)

On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 14:40:03 +0100, John & Lisa wrote
(in article <TuWgg.3789$x53.146 [at] newsfe1-win.ntli.net>):

> Can you please take a look at some photographs placed on our forums please
> (below).
> We are looking to find out a bit more about this type of tree and the damage
> it can do.
>
> http://www.gmails.co.uk/forums/showthread.php4?p=246#post246
>
>

It looks like a mature silver birch and a thing of great beauty. I really do
hope you're not thinking of cutting it down instead of moving the caravan!

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

On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 15:23:50 +0100, La Puce wrote
(in article <1149517430.698817.20640 [at] i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):

>
> John & Lisa wrote:
>> Ah, thanks for the answer on the tree type.
>> Would not agree on the beatiful bit though, at least not while it is
>> dropping shed fulls of debris all over my front drive and caravan :-)
>
> But ... but ... caravaning is all about living with nature. Move the
> caravan!!! ;o)
>

For once La Puce and I are in accord. Surely people wouldn't cut down a tree
because their vehicle gets dirty! Why have a garden? The tree has been
around longer than the caravan, I'm sure, gives shelter to birds, pleasure to
those that see it and oxygen to the world of the body, mind and spirit.
Surely you could either clean the van a little more often, clean it when you
want to use it only, or buy a covering tarpaulin of some sort, rather than
destroy a mature tree for a *caravan*!
And perhaps you could sweep the drive once or twice a week, instead of
cutting down a tree - maybe you could invest in one of those leaf blower
things or a Garden Vac, instead of cutting down a tree?!

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

Sacha Hubbard wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 15:23:50 +0100, La Puce wrote
> (in article <1149517430.698817.20640 [at] i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
>
> >
> > John & Lisa wrote:
> >> Ah, thanks for the answer on the tree type.
> >> Would not agree on the beatiful bit though, at least not while it is
> >> dropping shed fulls of debris all over my front drive and caravan :-)
> >
> > But ... but ... caravaning is all about living with nature. Move the
> > caravan!!! ;o)
> >
>
> For once La Puce and I are in accord. Surely people wouldn't cut down a tree
> because their vehicle gets dirty! Why have a garden? The tree has been
> around longer than the caravan, I'm sure, gives shelter to birds, pleasure to
> those that see it and oxygen to the world of the body, mind and spirit.
> Surely you could either clean the van a little more often, clean it when you
> want to use it only, or buy a covering tarpaulin of some sort, rather than
> destroy a mature tree for a *caravan*!
> And perhaps you could sweep the drive once or twice a week, instead of
> cutting down a tree - maybe you could invest in one of those leaf blower
> things or a Garden Vac, instead of cutting down a tree?!
> --
> Sacha

I agree. It's a lovely tree, and it would be a terrible shame to cut
it down.

"Sacha Hubbard" <sacha [at] privacy.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C0AA01830011C41EF0284550 [at] news.individual.net...
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 14:40:03 +0100, John & Lisa wrote
> (in article <TuWgg.3789$x53.146 [at] newsfe1-win.ntli.net>):
>
>> Can you please take a look at some photographs placed on our forums
>> please
>> (below).
>> We are looking to find out a bit more about this type of tree and the
>> damage
>> it can do.
>>
>> http://www.gmails.co.uk/forums/showthread.php4?p=246#post246
>>
>>
>
> It looks like a mature silver birch and a thing of great beauty. I really
> do
> hope you're not thinking of cutting it down instead of moving the caravan!

I've had a similar problem with a flowering cherry which drops flowers and
other muck all over the caravan, but I'd much rather spend a little while
cleaning the van than cutting the tree down, that is not the right thing to
do.

As has been suggested in another post, get a cover for the van if cleaning
it is too much of a problem.

Alan

Alan Holmes wrote:
[...]
> As has been suggested in another post, get a cover for the van if cleaning
> it is too much of a problem.
>
On this subject, while I have no experience, I wonder if the OP doesn't
want the tarpaulin look: I could see why. So, if the caravan isn't used
too often, how about a neat sheet of black polythene cut to fit the
roof and stuck on with that "outdoor sellotape"? That would be
unobtrusive and protect the worst-affected area..

--
Mike.

"John & Lisa" <me [at] privateemailaddress.co.uk> wrote in message
news:TuWgg.3789$x53.146 [at] newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> Can you please take a look at some photographs placed on our forums please
> (below).
> We are looking to find out a bit more about this type of tree and the
damage
> it can do.
>
> http://www.gmails.co.uk/forums/showthread.php4?p=246#post246
>

Since gardening is about taming nature, there is nothing wrong with cutting
it down. However, a Birch *is* a fantastic tree and responds well to
pollarding.
Chop it in the dead of winter at about 10 foot and remove all lower
branches.
It will produce a nice bushy topped tree in a couple of years. Enough time
to get rid of that dreadful caravan!

--
Mike W

On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 13:42:15 +0100, VisionSet wrote
(in article <HKehg.5134$Yi3.4310 [at] newsfe3-win.ntli.net>):

>
> "John & Lisa" <me [at] privateemailaddress.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:TuWgg.3789$x53.146 [at] newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>> Can you please take a look at some photographs placed on our forums please
>> (below).
>> We are looking to find out a bit more about this type of tree and the
> damage
>> it can do.
>>
>> http://www.gmails.co.uk/forums/showthread.php4?p=246#post246
>>
>
> Since gardening is about taming nature, there is nothing wrong with cutting
> it down. However, a Birch *is* a fantastic tree and responds well to
> pollarding.
> Chop it in the dead of winter at about 10 foot and remove all lower
> branches.
> It will produce a nice bushy topped tree in a couple of years. Enough time
> to get rid of that dreadful caravan!
>
> --
> Mike W
>
>

SOME gardens may be about taming nature but for many people - most urglers, I
would venture - it's about working WITH nature. Certainly that is what we
try to do here and it's what all the urglers I've met try to do. 'Taming'
nature is what has led to the loss of habitat for so many species, loss of
ponds, dewponds, field hedges and the knock-on effects. Cutting down trees
or knocking down swallows' nests (yes, that has been a subject on urg in the
past) is not what most of us either want to do, or encourage. I find it
utterly incredible that anyone would contemplate destroying a tree to keep
clean a vehicle that pollutes the atmosphere the tree enhances! Clean the
thing more often or cover it up is the obvious solution. Better still, do
not move to an area with trees or birds in it. It's like people who live in
towns and dream of moving to the countryside. When they do, they complain
that the farms smell of cows or pigs and that the lane is covered in pats or
that there's no street-lighting. Bah!
IMO, pollarded trees are an abortion when done for urban convenience.
Rant over!

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

"Sacha Hubbard" <sacha [at] privacy.net> spouted in message
news:0001HW.C0AB3D89001697A6F0284550 [at] news.individual.net...

> >>
> >
> > Since gardening is about taming nature, there is nothing wrong with
cutting
> > it down. However, a Birch *is* a fantastic tree and responds well to
> > pollarding.
> > Chop it in the dead of winter at about 10 foot and remove all lower
> > branches.
> > It will produce a nice bushy topped tree in a couple of years. Enough
time
> > to get rid of that dreadful caravan!
> >
> > --
> > Mike W
> >
> >
>
> SOME gardens may be about taming nature but for many people - most
urglers, I > would venture - it's about working WITH nature.

Working with / taming: a part of a continum which everyone occupies a
different part of.

> Clean the
> thing more often or cover it up is the obvious solution. Better still, do
> not move to an area with trees or birds in it.

Mars?

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

I agree with you there.

> IMO, pollarded trees are an abortion when done for urban convenience.
> Rant over!


IMO pollarding is essential in any managed environment for the health of the
tree and the species that make use of it.

--
Mike W

"Sacha Hubbard" <sacha [at] privacy.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C0AB3D89001697A6F0284550 [at] news.individual.net...

> it's about working WITH nature. Certainly that is what we
> try to do here

Certainly?
Not healthy to come across as 'I am xyz newsgroup'.
In fact you really shouldn't spout shit like that.
URG is by the people for the people and you and the regulars are not URG.

--
Mike W

"VisionSet" <spam [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:0lfhg.12634$C83.2985 [at] newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>

> "Sacha Hubbard" <sacha [at] privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.C0AB3D89001697A6F0284550 [at] news.individual.net...
>
> > it's about working WITH nature. Certainly that is what we
> > try to do here
>


> Certainly?

> Not healthy to come across as 'I am xyz newsgroup'.

So says "I am UseNet"

> In fact you really shouldn't spout shit like that.

Whereas, by implication, you should.

> URG is by the people for the people and you and the regulars
> are not URG.

If it weren't for the regulars there'd be no NewsGroup.

Why don't you have a nice sit down in a darkened room, and have
a little think about that last sentence.

And then post your apology.



michael adams

....




>
> --
> Mike W
>
>

"Alan Holmes" <alan.holmes [at] virgin.net> wrote in message
news:LE1hg.5056$Yi3.200 [at] newsfe3-win.ntli.net...

> As has been suggested in another post, get a cover for the van if cleaning
> it is too much of a problem.

[silver birch]

Dried catkins are easily brushed off the top of a caravan in any case -
that's if the wind doesn't do the job first.


michael adams





>
> Alan
>
>

VisionSet wrote:
> "Sacha Hubbard" <sacha [at] privacy.net> spouted in message
[...]
> > IMO, pollarded trees are an abortion when done for urban convenience.
> > Rant over!
>
>
> IMO pollarding is essential in any managed environment for the health of the
> tree and the species that make use of it.

In the words of the tennis player, you can NOT be serious. So why say
it?

--
Mike.

On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 14:23:08 +0100, VisionSet wrote
(in article <0lfhg.12634$C83.2985 [at] newsfe4-win.ntli.net>):

>
> "Sacha Hubbard" <sacha [at] privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.C0AB3D89001697A6F0284550 [at] news.individual.net...
>
>> it's about working WITH nature. Certainly that is what we
>> try to do here
>
> Certainly?
> Not healthy to come across as 'I am xyz newsgroup'.
> In fact you really shouldn't spout shit like that.
> URG is by the people for the people and you and the regulars are not URG.
>
> --
> Mike W
>
>

Is that 'shit' supposed to get a round of applause? 'Here' is here, where we
live. How on earth do you work with nature in the garden of a newsgroup?
Good grief! Lucky old urg - another prat to be ignored.

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

"Sacha Hubbard" <sacha [at] privacy.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C0AB6A9C00212806F0284550 [at] news.individual.net...
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 14:23:08 +0100, VisionSet wrote
> (in article <0lfhg.12634$C83.2985 [at] newsfe4-win.ntli.net>):
>
> >
> > "Sacha Hubbard" <sacha [at] privacy.net> wrote in message
> > news:0001HW.C0AB3D89001697A6F0284550 [at] news.individual.net...
> >
> >> it's about working WITH nature. Certainly that is what we
> >> try to do here
> >
> > Certainly?
> > Not healthy to come across as 'I am xyz newsgroup'.
> > In fact you really shouldn't spout shit like that.
> > URG is by the people for the people and you and the regulars are not
URG.
> >
> > --
> > Mike W
> >
> >
>
> Is that 'shit' supposed to get a round of applause? 'Here' is here, where
we
> live. How on earth do you work with nature in the garden of a newsgroup?
> Good grief! Lucky old urg - another prat to be ignored.
>

Okay, just thought you were coming across as if you speak for everyone.
And you started it in the Ivy thread!

--
Mike W

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

"Janet Baraclough" <janet.and.john [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:31303030393032394485DD5E13 [at] zetnet.co.uk...
> The message <HKehg.5134$Yi3.4310 [at] newsfe3-win.ntli.net>
> from "VisionSet" <spam [at] ntlworld.com> contains these words:
>
>
> > Since gardening is about taming nature, there is nothing wrong with
cutting
> > it down. However, a Birch *is* a fantastic tree and responds well to
> > pollarding.
>
> Er, no, it's one of the trees that responds very badly to pollarding.

Young ones do respond well.
I agree, the one in the photo now having looked at it, is too large.
I'd show you mine, but usb is playing up so I can't

>
> > Chop it in the dead of winter at about 10 foot and remove all lower
> > branches.
> > It will produce a nice bushy topped tree in a couple of years.
>
> No, it won't. Some trees will do that, but birch is not one of them.
> The regrowth will be uneven, some branches dying back, others regrowing
> unnaturally dense ( "witches brooms") and it will look hideous until
> disease overtakes it and it dies.
>
> The good news is, that meanwhile, the cut branches will pour sticky
> sap in a stream onto the caravan.
>

Might make it burn better?

--
Mike W

"Janet Baraclough" <janet.and.john [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:31303030393032394485DD5E13 [at] zetnet.co.uk...
> The message <HKehg.5134$Yi3.4310 [at] newsfe3-win.ntli.net>
> from "VisionSet" <spam [at] ntlworld.com> contains these words:
>
>
> > Since gardening is about taming nature, there is nothing wrong with
cutting
> > it down. However, a Birch *is* a fantastic tree and responds well to
> > pollarding.
>
> Er, no, it's one of the trees that responds very badly to pollarding.
>

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

--
Mike W

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

Not all people who move from town to countryside complain.

Please don't generalise.

Some country people are better people than some townspeople. Some
townspeople are better than some country people. It is not true to say
that all country people are hardworking, environmentally aware, etc, etc
whereas all town people are ignorant of country life and ignorant of
nature and the environment.
--
Kay

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

"Janet Baraclough" <janet.and.john [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:31303030393032394485EB8955 [at] zetnet.co.uk...
> The message <tfihg.5167$Yi3.3316 [at] newsfe3-win.ntli.net>
> from "VisionSet" <spam [at] ntlworld.com> contains these words:
>
> > Okay, just thought you were coming across as if you speak for everyone.
>
> So, don't you owe an apology for your rude comments made in error?
>
> > And you started it in the Ivy thread!
>
> In the ivy thread, Sacha commented that we often see posts in urg
> from people whose garden plants have been affected by weedkiller spray
> drift. Which is true. That was not " Sacha speaking for everyone",
> she was accurately reporting the group's experience.
>

I wasn't referring to that

--
Mike W

"Janet Baraclough" <janet.and.john [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:31303030393032394485E7C255 [at] zetnet.co.uk...
> The message <Tokhg.9112$x53.1504 [at] newsfe1-win.ntli.net>
> from "VisionSet" <spam [at] ntlworld.com> contains these words:
>
>
> > "Janet Baraclough" <janet.and.john [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:31303030393032394485DD5E13 [at] zetnet.co.uk...
> > > The message <HKehg.5134$Yi3.4310 [at] newsfe3-win.ntli.net>
> > > from "VisionSet" <spam [at] ntlworld.com> contains these words:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Since gardening is about taming nature, there is nothing wrong with
> > cutting
> > > > it down. However, a Birch *is* a fantastic tree and responds well
to
> > > > pollarding.
> > >
> > > Er, no, it's one of the trees that responds very badly to
pollarding.
>
> > Young ones do respond well.
>
> No, they do not. Pollard a young birch and the form will be ruined
> for good.
> Are you confusing pollarding with coppicing ?
>

Yes the 'natural' form will be ruined for good. And no.

--
Mike W

"Janet Baraclough" <janet.and.john [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:31303030393032394485E81E74 [at] zetnet.co.uk...
> The message <Zrkhg.9121$x53.3233 [at] newsfe1-win.ntli.net>
> from "VisionSet" <spam [at] ntlworld.com> contains these words:
>
>
> > "Janet Baraclough" <janet.and.john [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:31303030393032394485DD5E13 [at] zetnet.co.uk...
> > > The message <HKehg.5134$Yi3.4310 [at] newsfe3-win.ntli.net>
> > > from "VisionSet" <spam [at] ntlworld.com> contains these words:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Since gardening is about taming nature, there is nothing wrong with
> > cutting
> > > > it down. However, a Birch *is* a fantastic tree and responds well
to
> > > > pollarding.
> > >
> > > Er, no, it's one of the trees that responds very badly to
pollarding.
> > >
>
> > Also it depends what you want. There's a birch near us, that the owner
has
> > successively 'pollarded' and selectively kept primary tips.
>
> ?? Those two terms are incompatible. After pollarding, no primary
> growth or leaders remain.
> I still think you have mistaken the meaning of the word pollard.
>

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

--
Mike W

On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 20:08:11 +0100, K wrote
(in article <WBrywtCbKdhEFwxt [at] scarboro.demon.co.uk>):

>
>>> It's like people who live in
>>> towns and dream of moving to the countryside. When they do, they complain
>>> that the farms smell of cows or pigs and that the lane is covered in pats
>> or
>>> that there's no street-lighting. Bah!
>
> Not all people who move from town to countryside complain.
>
> Please don't generalise.

Please do not pull me up on something I didn't do. I did not say ALL people
who live in towns etc. I said 'people'. In this very village we have had
that experience.
>
> Some country people are better people than some townspeople. Some
> townspeople are better than some country people. It is not true to say
> that all country people are hardworking, environmentally aware, etc, etc
> whereas all town people are ignorant of country life and ignorant of
> nature and the environment.
>

Please don't generalise on the back of my posts.

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

On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 20:54:33 +0100, Janet Baraclough wrote
(in article <31303030393032394485EB8955 [at] zetnet.co.uk>):

> The message <tfihg.5167$Yi3.3316 [at] newsfe3-win.ntli.net>
> from "VisionSet" <spam [at] ntlworld.com> contains these words:
>
>> Okay, just thought you were coming across as if you speak for everyone.
>
> So, don't you owe an apology for your rude comments made in error?
>
>> And you started it in the Ivy thread!
>
> In the ivy thread, Sacha commented that we often see posts in urg
> from people whose garden plants have been affected by weedkiller spray
> drift. Which is true. That was not " Sacha speaking for everyone",
> she was accurately reporting the group's experience.
>

And that of people we know and the results of which we have seen.

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

On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 19:54:06 +0100, Janet Baraclough wrote
(in article <31303030393032394485DD5E13 [at] zetnet.co.uk>):

> The message <HKehg.5134$Yi3.4310 [at] newsfe3-win.ntli.net>
> from "VisionSet" <spam [at] ntlworld.com> contains these words:
>
>
>> Since gardening is about taming nature, there is nothing wrong with cutting
>> it down. However, a Birch *is* a fantastic tree and responds well to
>> pollarding.
>
> Er, no, it's one of the trees that responds very badly to pollarding.
>
>> Chop it in the dead of winter at about 10 foot and remove all lower
>> branches.
>> It will produce a nice bushy topped tree in a couple of years.
>
> No, it won't. Some trees will do that, but birch is not one of them.
> The regrowth will be uneven, some branches dying back, others regrowing
> unnaturally dense ( "witches brooms") and it will look hideous until
> disease overtakes it and it dies.
>
> The good news is, that meanwhile, the cut branches will pour sticky
> sap in a stream onto the caravan.
>

Whoops!


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

On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 20:08:35 +0100, VisionSet wrote
(in article <Tokhg.9112$x53.1504 [at] newsfe1-win.ntli.net>):

>
> "Janet Baraclough" <janet.and.john [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:31303030393032394485DD5E13 [at] zetnet.co.uk...
>> The message <HKehg.5134$Yi3.4310 [at] newsfe3-win.ntli.net>
>> from "VisionSet" <spam [at] ntlworld.com> contains these words:
>>
>>
>>> Since gardening is about taming nature, there is nothing wrong with
> cutting
>>> it down. However, a Birch *is* a fantastic tree and responds well to
>>> pollarding.
>>
>> Er, no, it's one of the trees that responds very badly to pollarding.
>
> Young ones do respond well.
> I agree, the one in the photo now having looked at it, is too large.

But you gave advice of a very decided and apparently knowledgeable nature.
And now you say that that the one in question is too large. The very one you
advised the OP to pollard. You are irresponsible with your advice, IMO.

> I'd show you mine, but usb is playing up so I can't

Amazing.

<snip>

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

"VisionSet" <spam [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:6nmhg.8881$qD.1670 [at] newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Janet Baraclough" <janet.and.john [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:31303030393032394485E81E74 [at] zetnet.co.uk...
> > The message <Zrkhg.9121$x53.3233 [at] newsfe1-win.ntli.net>
> > from "VisionSet" <spam [at] ntlworld.com> contains these words:
> >
> >
> > > "Janet Baraclough" <janet.and.john [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:31303030393032394485DD5E13 [at] zetnet.co.uk...
> > > > The message <HKehg.5134$Yi3.4310 [at] newsfe3-win.ntli.net>
> > > > from "VisionSet" <spam [at] ntlworld.com> contains these words:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Since gardening is about taming nature, there is nothing wrong
with
> > > cutting
> > > > > it down. However, a Birch *is* a fantastic tree and responds well
> to
> > > > > pollarding.
> > > >
> > > > Er, no, it's one of the trees that responds very badly to
> pollarding.
> > > >
> >
> > > Also it depends what you want. There's a birch near us, that the
owner
> has
> > > successively 'pollarded' and selectively kept primary tips.
> >
> > ?? Those two terms are incompatible. After pollarding, no primary
> > growth or leaders remain.
> > I still think you have mistaken the meaning of the word pollard.
> >
>
> Once pollarded, many new primaries are generated, from those one is
> selected, in the case I mentioned.
>
> --
> Mike W


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

That has nothing to do with primary growth or leaders.

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

Which would render the whole exercise rather pointless.

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


michael adams

....




>
>

"Sacha Hubbard" <sacha [at] privacy.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C0ABB40E00325ED6F0284550 [at] news.individual.net...

>
> > I'd show you mine, but usb is playing up so I can't
>
> Amazing.
>

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.os.windows2000/browse_t hread/thread/182d958e1fcf359a/1508e4e4f46fd5a7?tvc=2&q=u sb+2000+author%3Avisionset&hl=en#1508e4e4f46fd5a7

--
Mike W

"michael adams" <mjadams26 [at] onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:4emb9mF1ep76lU1 [at] individual.net...
>
> "VisionSet" <spam [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:6nmhg.8881$qD.1670 [at] newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
> >
> > "Janet Baraclough" <janet.and.john [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:31303030393032394485E81E74 [at] zetnet.co.uk...
> > > The message <Zrkhg.9121$x53.3233 [at] newsfe1-win.ntli.net>
> > > from "VisionSet" <spam [at] ntlworld.com> contains these words:
> > >
> > >
> > > > "Janet Baraclough" <janet.and.john [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > news:31303030393032394485DD5E13 [at] zetnet.co.uk...
> > > > > The message <HKehg.5134$Yi3.4310 [at] newsfe3-win.ntli.net>
> > > > > from "VisionSet" <spam [at] ntlworld.com> contains these words:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Since gardening is about taming nature, there is nothing wrong
> with
> > > > cutting
> > > > > > it down. However, a Birch *is* a fantastic tree and responds
well
> > to
> > > > > > pollarding.
> > > > >
> > > > > Er, no, it's one of the trees that responds very badly to
> > pollarding.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > Also it depends what you want. There's a birch near us, that the
> owner
> > has
> > > > successively 'pollarded' and selectively kept primary tips.
> > >
> > > ?? Those two terms are incompatible. After pollarding, no primary
> > > growth or leaders remain.
> > > I still think you have mistaken the meaning of the word pollard.
> > >
> >
> > Once pollarded, many new primaries are generated, from those one is
> > selected, in the case I mentioned.
> >
> > --
> > Mike W
>
>
> Any branch leading off the trunk of a tree is a primary branch.
> Branches off that are secondary branches.
>
> That has nothing to do with primary growth or leaders.
>
> Using a primary branch as the primary growth of a tree - rather
> than the trunk will simply produce a crooked tree.
>
> Which would render the whole exercise rather pointless.
>
> There is no primary growth on leaders in either pollarded or
> coppiced wood. All the new primary branches develop in unison
> either from the foot of the trunk or around 6ft up, and are
> harvested once they reach the required size. And the whole
> process starts over.
>

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

--
Mike W

"VisionSet" <spam [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:UKmhg.17450$rC1.5423 [at] newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "michael adams" <mjadams26 [at] onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
> news:4emb9mF1ep76lU1 [at] individual.net...
> >
> > "VisionSet" <spam [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:6nmhg.8881$qD.1670 [at] newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
> > >
> > > "Janet Baraclough" <janet.and.john [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:31303030393032394485E81E74 [at] zetnet.co.uk...
> > > > The message <Zrkhg.9121$x53.3233 [at] newsfe1-win.ntli.net>
> > > > from "VisionSet" <spam [at] ntlworld.com> contains these words:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > "Janet Baraclough" <janet.and.john [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > > news:31303030393032394485DD5E13 [at] zetnet.co.uk...
> > > > > > The message <HKehg.5134$Yi3.4310 [at] newsfe3-win.ntli.net>
> > > > > > from "VisionSet" <spam [at] ntlworld.com> contains these words:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since gardening is about taming nature, there is nothing wrong
> > with
> > > > > cutting
> > > > > > > it down. However, a Birch *is* a fantastic tree and responds
> well
> > > to
> > > > > > > pollarding.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Er, no, it's one of the trees that responds very badly to
> > > pollarding.
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Also it depends what you want. There's a birch near us, that the
> > owner
> > > has
> > > > > successively 'pollarded' and selectively kept primary tips.
> > > >
> > > > ?? Those two terms are incompatible. After pollarding, no primary
> > > > growth or leaders remain.
> > > > I still think you have mistaken the meaning of the word pollard.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Once pollarded, many new primaries are generated, from those one is
> > > selected, in the case I mentioned.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mike W
> >
> >
> > Any branch leading off the trunk of a tree is a primary branch.
> > Branches off that are secondary branches.
> >
> > That has nothing to do with primary growth or leaders.
> >
> > Using a primary branch as the primary growth of a tree - rather
> > than the trunk will simply produce a crooked tree.
> >
> > Which would render the whole exercise rather pointless.
> >
> > There is no primary growth on leaders in either pollarded or
> > coppiced wood. All the new primary branches develop in unison
> > either from the foot of the trunk or around 6ft up, and are
> > harvested once they reach the required size. And the whole
> > process starts over.
> >
>
> This is a tangential issue regarding a tree I have noticed near me.
> See parallel thread.

....

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

....


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

....

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

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


michael adams

....

>
> --
> Mike W
>
>

Sacha Hubbard <sacha [at] privacy.net> writes
>On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 20:08:11 +0100, K wrote
>(in article <WBrywtCbKdhEFwxt [at] scarboro.demon.co.uk>):
>
>>
>>>> It's like people who live in
>>>> towns and dream of moving to the countryside. When they do, they complain
>>>> that the farms smell of cows or pigs and that the lane is covered in pats
>>> or
>>>> that there's no street-lighting. Bah!
>>
>> Not all people who move from town to countryside complain.
>>
>> Please don't generalise.
>
>Please do not pull me up on something I didn't do. I did not say ALL people
>who live in towns etc. I said 'people'. In this very village we have had
>that experience.

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

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

--
Kay

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 23:25:50 +0100, K wrote
(in article <etmwrqGuDghEFwCf [at] scarboro.demon.co.uk>):

> Sacha Hubbard <sacha [at] privacy.net> writes
>> On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 20:08:11 +0100, K wrote
>> (in article <WBrywtCbKdhEFwxt [at] scarboro.demon.co.uk>):
>>
>>>
>>>>> It's like people who live in
>>>>> towns and dream of moving to the countryside. When they do, they
>>>>> complain
>>>>> that the farms smell of cows or pigs and that the lane is covered in pats
>>>> or
>>>>> that there's no street-lighting. Bah!
>>>
>>> Not all people who move from town to countryside complain.
>>>
>>> Please don't generalise.
>>
>> Please do not pull me up on something I didn't do. I did not say ALL people
>> who live in towns etc. I said 'people'. In this very village we have had
>> that experience.
>
> You didn't say 'some people who live in towns' etc. Your post seemed to
> me to be a generalisation.

No, you extrapolated that because of your own feelings. I did not say "all
people who live in towns", either.
>
> Over my years with urg there have been a good number of posts implying
> that people who live in towns are inferior to those who live in the
> countryside, and I am really fed up of it.
>
I would suggest that over those years you should have come to know that I do
not say that, think it or believe it. I'm hardly a horny handed daughter of
the soil, myself! And over those same years we have had many posts from
people who want trees cut down or birds stopped from nesting because it
messes up their cars or their terraces. It is that to which I object,
extremely strongly and I'm not alone in that.

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

"michael adams" <mjadams26 [at] onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:4emcffF1etsurU1 [at] individual.net...

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

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

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

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

>
> ...
>
>
> > The tree in question is crooked, intentionally so, so no,
> > not pointless.
>
> ...
>
> All other things being equal, a crooked tree is an unbalanced
> tree and thus likely to constitute a hazard at some point in
> the future, and thus something which should be avoided if at
> all possible.

I'll be sure to relay you views.

--
Mike W