Pete Hughes wrote:
Jerry Ross wrote:
But if a brace is justified, other than in special circumstances
(e.g. where a valuable decay-prone species really needs extra
support), I'd go for steel every time.
Jerry, just wondering why you'd go for steel everytime (just curious,
not criticising!)
Regards
Pete
In those cases where bracing really is the solution, steel's stronger,
more reliable and not so prone to degradation ; and as a result it
isn't so dependant upon rechecking, maintenance, replacement etc. (as
has been said, over the lifetime of a tree, how many cobra braces get
checked at the appropriate intervals (and I notice no-one's actually
answered Jon's original query about what IS appropriate...)
And almost the most important - they're so very much less obtrusive. A
Cobra may be a talking point, but that because it shouts "Here I am",
whereas you often have to search for a steel cable.
Cobra's quicker to fit, of course, but any cost benefit to the
customer is likely to be offset by the need for ongoing care and
frequent adjustment/replacement.
And the benefits of it being non-invasive is, I suspect, hugely
over-stated in most cases. How many of us have NOT hit some metal
object that had become ingrown to a tree, with no sign of ill effect
to anything except the saw?
On the other hand, the point I was trying to make about decay-prone
species was not that one should anticipate decay by bracing, but that
drilling holes will CAUSE (or rather permit) decay. In those cases
I'd certainly agree that non-invasive is better. I remember taking
down a Walnut with three cables fitted and at each bolt insertion
there was bark death and decay, with one branch having broken at that
point... (And as far as I recall, that was a case where the tree's
original structure wasn't such that the braces were needed in the
first place. The cabling had actually caused its demise!)
Right.
Christmas beckons (family round tomorrow) so I'm off.
Have a good'n one and all!
Jerry R
