Sealing Wounds?

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by Nickrosis
I'm cautioning against using customers as guinea pigs. Yes, it may be what they want, and it may be better than convention. But frame it in that context.

They should be the first to know; full dosclosure. The more disclosure, the more client buy-in and belief and support.

Re the loyalty to 'conventional" (what does that mean?) vs. alternative medicine, that's a good offtopic topic. Homeostasis vs. heterostasis; wherever your comfort zone is.

I've had good and bad conventional and alternative doctoring; no reason to reject either because of categories. Trees are no different.

"Should those arborists who went against those norms have worked for free?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


N: Think this through with me, please. Alternative or experimental does not automatically equal better! Maybe the peanut butter adhesive is better, but likely not.

You get a C on that response, because it failed to answer the question. ( Have you been watching the debates on TV again?)

Selling conventional treatments that you know will not work, now that's fraud. When conventional treatments have been seen to fail, trying something else is hard work and not a hobby. Working for free cheats your paying clients.

 

[xander9727]

Copper plating stops wood worms........maybe one of Paul Revere's descendents will make us some cute little caps.

 

[Nickrosis]

Originally posted by Guy Meilleur
You get a C on that response, because it failed to answer the question. ( Have you been watching the debates on TV again?)

Sorry...I was cutting and pasting on a 320x240 screen. Should they work for free? What a silly question. It's a matter of hindsight being 20-20. I give you D on that question.

Originally posted by Guy Meilleur
Selling conventional treatments that you know will not work, now that's fraud.

But of course.

Originally posted by Guy Meilleur
When conventional treatments have been seen to fail, trying something else is hard work and not a hobby.

If it fails once, it maybe an unforeseen factor. If it fails just for you, you might want to check how you're doing. If it keeps failing and fails for others, it should come out of the toolchest of options.

 

[glens]

Random thoughts

TreeMachine didn't mention the pertinent point in "prognosis-bad.jpg" that you're looking at the north side of the house.

Nick doesn't approve of experimental services being charged-for, yet in the field of human health care he prefers "conventional" medicine as opposed to alternatives.  My knee-jerk reaction to that is that the alternatives are usually the things that have been done since ancient times and the "conventional" stuff is usually highly experimental and more costly to the customer because of it!

I seem to have some memories of working on overhead doors at (Campbell Soup's?) mushroom farms in Chicago and those buildings were devoid of light...

Glen

 

[Tree Machine]

Kind of devoid of light. The mycelium (the white filamentous stuff with the wood-digesting enzymes) does not need light. Mycelium does its work beneath surface of the bark and into the xylem. However, mycelium can grow in the light also, but there is a better chance, then, that it will dry out. Light becomes important only in fruiting, or reproduction; the actual creation of the mushroom.

At Campbell's Mushroom farm they'll keep it dark during the spawn run phase, and they'll turn on the 'lights' during the flush. Economical. Even then, light can be low, and adjusted to fit the human schedule (cropping, or pickin the buggers). This is off-topic, in a way. Button mushrooms grow off compost. We're talking about wood-decomposers in their wild, undomesticated state.

Good point on the north-side thing, I forgot to add that to my 'prognosis bad list'. The cavity faces the west, open to every rainstorm coming in from the west. I could measure the cavity, and in ten years measure it again. However, I know it will enlarge.

CODIT is cool, but fungus is ferocious. Given a regular supply of water and wood, fungus just naturally and spontaneously digests wood back to soil. It doesn't have any say-so. It's what fungus does to ensure survival and perpetuation of it's specie.

 

[Tree Machine]

On to Nick's concern about charging the customer for experimental cavity treatments. Did I ever say I was charging customers for this service? To be completely honest, I am not really thinking about the homeowners, just the health of the tree. If I list 'Cavity inspections and treatment' that means I do whatever I can to lend advantage to the tree in overcoming the abscess.

I may list this service on the sheet, but timewise, it is a minor element as compared with deadwooding and tip pruning and cleanup. I inspect every cavity I come across, for the sake of observation. Most of the time I do nothing with it.

If I choose to shoot some moisture-cure in the cavity, I do not charge them for the product, it just gets included in the price of the service. If I decide to risk my camera, and schlepp it up into the tree, I do that, well...., pretty much for you guys.

I have to go to work, now, but I look forward to getting back to Tom's two-part question, part one about being 100% submerged in water and, and WAIT, I forgot about the wood foundations in port cities; they're pounded deep into the mud. There is simply no oxygen deep in the muds. Only anaerobes work down there (methanogens) and these bacteria ore not wood decomposers.

Part two of Tom's question was about Oxygen, creating an oxygen impermeable barrier, and isn't there oxygen in wood? I'll approach this with you tonight. It's a very good question.

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by Tree Machine
To be completely honest, I am not really thinking about the homeowners, just the health of the tree. . I inspect every cavity I come across, for the sake of observation. Most of the time I do nothing with it.

A man after my own

"I could measure the cavity, and in ten years measure it again. However, I know it will enlarge."

Umm, I have less confidence in the pathogen and more in the tree, usually. ID'ing the pathogen, if possible, helps a lot. But if experience tells you that this one will expand and you want to experiment, hey go for it.

Don't mind Nick, he's just looking to C his A. With a bigger company that is a bigger consideration.

 

[Nickrosis]

Yeah, thanks.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here. My point essentially is that experimental techniques are not automatically better than "conventional" practices just because they are new or unique, etc.

My reasoning for using effective "conventional" practices is because of the strong history behind them. Not just personal, anecdotal experience, but the numerous studies and reports as well.

For new problems to solve, you don't have this ready-reference, of course, and have to rely on less-tested techniques. As you've mentioned, that is something that the customers should be briefed on.

 

[Tree Machine]

And I'm not trying to be a renegade.

My reasoning for using effective "conventional" practices is because of the strong history behind them

For hundreds, maybe thousands of years if you had an infected wound you would rub salt into it. If it abscessed, you would pack salt into it. Sometime later, after much pain and agony from the gangrene, you would die.

Then one day a cat named Joseph Lister said "Hey, I've got this new antiseptic liquid that'll kill all the microbes we haven't discovered yet."

But Nick's great, great, great, great, great, great grandpa said, "Hey man, that's whack. We have these conventional methods with strong history behind them."

Nick, I can appreciate your conservative approach, actually, no I can't. Aren't they teaching you to think outside of the box, or are they brainwashing you to learn and do, only that which has already been learned and done?

I would think you would be the first to step up and gather more information, mebbe ask WHAT the product is, what are it's properties, how does it differ from other methods, what does it cost, etc. not be the only one to poo-poo the idea with next to no information. You, sir, don't live in the dark ages. You're supposed to be on the cutting edge. We count on the newly and formally educated to bring us the latest stuff, not the same stuff we already know. If you're gonna slash a new method, at least investigate it and give us a valid reason why its not worthy. Giving us this 'conventional, historical tested methods' crap just doesn't fly. You've got an education. Step up and show it. Talk from the standpoint of biology, because we're not talking convention and history. We're talking about trees.

 

[Nickrosis]

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.

 

[Nickrosis]

What you chose not to quote was the essence of my argument. We're no longer talking about anything specific here... My point was and is:

Originally posted by Nickrosis
My reasoning for using effective "conventional" practices is because of the strong history behind them. Not just personal, anecdotal experience, but the numerous studies and reports as well.

Rubbing salt into a wound was not a decision concluded by numerous studies and reports. It was solely anecdotal. And if you expect me to be a know-it-all whiz kid, you're mistaken. I'm a human being who's had a lot of great opportunities, but I don't have an answer for everything.

I stayed generic to the topic of sealing wounds because that's been hashed over for decades, and I believe Shigo's word is the final word. There will be progress and improvements on the thought, but it remains proven scientifically, anecdotally, and experientially that sealing wounds outside of disease pressure concerns is not a sound arboricultural practice.

Let's begin or end there.

 

[xander9727]

Originally posted by Nickrosis
if you expect me to be a know-it-all whiz kid, you're mistaken.

Say it ain't so Nick, say it ain't so!

 

[Tree Machine]

It has little to do with feelings. I respect you, buddy, but you surprised me. I know academia pumped you full of good science. I'd kinda hoped you'd grab my by the scientific horns and ask me legitimate scientific questions, like Tom has done.

"Hey Tree Machine, before you go feeding us this zany idea you have on product X, what exactly is your reasoning for thinking this is a solution to the problem?"

I might answer, "Nick, I live in an area where treemen have 'cared' for trees for the last 75 years. I see many, many cavities on a day to day basis, some small and forming, some advanced, and others whose progress led to the demise of the tree, huge cavity, trunk hollowed to the ground, and often pretty clear where the problem started."

Trees tell us their story, if you know how to 'listen'.

Cavities start with a wound site, whether natural or man made, and if the conditions are right, a cavity will expand until CODIT walls stop the expansion, or the CODIT walls do not, in which case fungus enters the sapwood, heartwood and travels unchallenged up and down the center of the trunk.

My position is to make the conditions 'not right' for the fungus to continue on its path. Fungus needs wood (non-living tissue), water and air. We can't eliminate the wood because we're dealing with a living, wooden organism, but we can address the water and air, and I feel we can literally choke off the fungus' needs and arrest its development.

Concrete was doomed from the beginning as a solution because it cracks, and never makes a perfect 'seal' to prevent the intrusion of insects, water, and air. There seemingly would be a commercially available product out there that would do this.

In observing compartmentalization through Shigo's writings, viewing the wound sites, looking into cavities, cross-cutting these areas during takedowns and flush-cutting off the protruding wound sites during takedowns, I have learned much about how compartmentalization happens, and how and why it can go wrong. These are just human, empirical observations with the intent of learning and understanding.

Don't ask me why this area of tree care intrigues me so. Mebbe if I am able to stop the progression of a problem in a tree, then I have done my job as a tree care professional.

In this image, surface closure is almost complete, and it looks like the tree will win this race (as oaks are pretty good at doing). What if the tree can be given a head start, and then left to do what it's going to do? My thought is if we can artificially create 'closure', the callus would continue to work its way across the artificial surface, eventually covering over completely as nature would have it. We're not intervening in the growth of the tree, but rather arresting the progress of the ubiquitous fungus.

 

[Nickrosis]

My take on arboriculture is a bit different. I look at trees as being organisms that are doing just fine every day. They close over wounds on their own, and if they don't, they make room for other trees to move in. In the case of a very important tree to someone, I would be more than willing to help support the tree and extend its life, but I think the next development we need is something that would actively go after the fungal pathogens. Maybe Arbotect or a relative is a solution for that.

Too many times, I see people overreacting to cavities when really, trees have stood for a thousand years with cavities. And I don't know enough about them.... But filling them is not something that I see as aiding the natural process of the tree. This is all too touchy-feely for me. When talking about science, I prefer much more definitive information and research. And this is not doing it for me. And that's also why I don't do research!

 

[ROLLACOSTA]

i have enjoyed reading the above posts , nice one NICK and TREEMACHINE..MIKE, GUY etc..thanks..this is real tree talk

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by Nickrosis
When talking about science, I prefer much more definitive information

Me too, Nickster. That's why I experiment with fighting fungus; because the most definitive information is what we do ourselves, and personally witness the results.

There is more acidity and different pathogens in our atmosphere; getting worse all the time. Trees are very slow to adapt, so working extra to help the tree against human-caused problems seems to be an arborist's duty.

When will there ever be definitive scientific research on the decay of large wounds? Never--too many variables, too long a time period, too little funding. I can't sit on my aspirations for respectable professionalism by going by the book, and watch hellplessly as the inevitable rot happens.


O and Mike, the next ant thread will exclude carpenter ants, which will hopefully lead to a level of conclusiveness satisfactory to your standards. I thought the thread proved that hacks who sell ant fears to whack trees have zero basis for their nefarious practices.

 

[Tree Machine]

Thank you, Rolla. Thanks ANYONE for being open-minded to new possibilites.

Mike,

once that little bit of dead wood is covered over, and it will no longer be a threat to the tree. Like if you used paint to cover an AIDS sore on your forehead.

Where you get your comparisons, I just don't know.

With regards to the first part, however, that would be correct, and here's why; Complete closure completes the CODIT scenario. Encapsulating the wound site completely keeps out tunnelling insects, stabilizes the moisture within, creates a barrier to the food source (wood, in the case of fungus, and fungus in the case of ants, centipedes, pillbugs, etc), and shelter, and seals the site from active air flow.

Paint has been the 'sealant' of choice, and is where all the research has been done. Paint is not much of a sealant. It's a thin coating which peels with time, especially if there is no primer. Do you know ANY arborist who had ever primed his wound site before painting? On the same hand, do you know ANY professional painter who would use paint over bare wood. NO, because the paint will not hold up, and will peel and flake over time. Painting wounds is as doomed to fail as filling cavities with concrete.

Painting wounds was most often done with black paint, which would cause a hot spot, possibly inhibiting callus progression. Painting was often done with a brush attached to a pole saw, put on from a distance. Was it latex paint, oil based, epoxy? was it a thick coating, or thin, and was the coverage complete, or just sort of slapped 'on there'. Who knows how standardized was the practice and do you think a hair-thin layer of paint is going to be any kind of barrier for a boring insect? How much of a barrier can it be to air exchange?

Anyway, that's entirely another area, painting fresh cuts. I'm interested in stopping the expansion of progressive, degenerative cavities by artificially mimicking what the tree is attempting to do, which is to compartmentalize, and seal over completely, preventing the intrusion of water, bugs and the exchange of fresh air. Moving from acute decay, to a simple internal defect.

I'm unsure as to why I'm taking a stand on this. I personally have nothing to gain. I don't sell this sealant adhesive and have no deal with the manufacturer. I'm not one of those who defends his side 'just to be right'. I just care about trees, and have an immense amount of experience and understanding of the nature of higher fungi, both in the lab, and in the field.

The trees can't speak for themselves, so that's my motivation. I'm speaking for them. I just can't see a growing cavity, with fungus and bugs and water in it being of any benefit whatsoever to the health and well-being of the tree. Turning a blind eye to these problems is not what I consider authentic, responsible tree care. Please, don't anybody take that offensively. You've not been given the tools to deal with this aspect of tree care. I'm just tired of waiting for someone else to do the work.

 

[Tree Machine]

Thank you, sir. Are you filling cavities, or coating surfaces?

 

[Nickrosis]

Rapid/complete closure = better situation for the tree?

Why, I can achieve rapid closure with a flush cut and fertilizer! It's more than that!

 

[Tom Dunlap]

TM,

You talked about rubbing salt in wounds and the work of Lister. That is interesting but, like Shigo reminds us, we're dealing with botanical not biological organisms. I don't know enough about the chemistry of decay, only the mechanics, to say anything about the similarities or differences between infections and decay. shigo has taught me enough to keep plants and animals seperate though.

I think Nick made a reference above to what scientific research is. doing random, uncontrolled projects is hardly research. Interesting anecdotal observations though. But, how does anyone know if the soup that you've been putting on the wounds has anything to do with the advancement or containment of the decay? Heck, for all we know there might have been some special organism floating around in the air at the same time you made the cut. This organism could have settled onto the cut and been sealed inside when you put your magic potion on the wound.

Until proper research is done it's irresponsible to claim that any of the magic goops work. I sure would like to see a magic potion on the market. Wulkie had many good things to say about wound dressings. I think I remember him saying that too many researchers have been scared off by Shigo's work. In actuality, I've read in one of Shigo's works that he says that the dressings available at the time didn't curtail decay. That doesn't mean there isn't something to be developed.

For a long time I've thought that this process might have merit for trees:

http://boatbuilding.com/content/rot.html
http://www.rotdoctor.com/

I googled ["wood decay" boats] and found this link to an FPL paper. I see in the index there's some info on ants too. Oops..wrong thread, unitentional hijack

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr113/ch13.pdf

I think there were 170 hits on the search.

We do need to remember that ships are built from lumber not wood. Dead and living tissues is the difference.

More googling

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="wood+decay"+prevention&btnG=Google+Search

Tom