Originally posted by Mike Maas
This year, Elmore cuts off 1/3 of the crown, next year ROLLACOSTA stops by and says another third is in order,
Whoa, cowboy! We know this is your most sensitive button, but you're painting opponents where they ain't. Elmore doesn't claim tp be an arborist; just crawled out of a Holiday Inn and hopefully won't get hired until he gets more experience. Rollacosta said "10% only if necessary" which I think is reasonable, so let's not slander the guy ok?
The analogy with the old man fits; I use it all the time. The "fixed income" analogy also fits, because a 97-yr old man may be able to gather other resources if his income is cut--greet people at Wal-Mart, take in a boarder, whatever.
Likewise even an old tree can put out new growth, in response to the shift in the auxin/cytokinin balance. Also, if only the lower, downright side (not major) branches are removed, the rest of the scaffold raises up toward the sun, grows from the upright tips, so it makes more food out of more sunlight.
I'm reminded of Shigo's analogy of a tree branch's cost/benefits to a bank account: at some point some branches withdraw more in support than they deposit in photosynthate. Even though they have leaves and are part of the living crown, it benefits the tree to remove them before they drain more resources. This removal should be done when there are signs, NOT in advance of individual branch decline.
It's hard to guess which branches will be expendable. And when mboln500 tells us how much access is desired, we'll know how much crown raising is desired, and go from there. We all know that whacking a 10" branch will rot the trunk, no question.