Bob Wulkowicz
ArboristSite Operative
<b>Part 2</b>
<i>Secondly, look at the cost of transplanting versus cutting down and replacing with something else.
Cutting down and replacement (say replacement with a viburnum for example):
Viburnum cost: ~$50
1 yard mulch cost:~$30
3 man hours to complete removal and replacement: $120
Total cost is approximately $200, and that is probably a high figure.
Transplanting:
You are looking at a minimum of 3 guys for at least 2 hours, probably 3 hours more realistically. Or 2 guys and a skidsteer, which should figure in as another man when estimating. I'm going to say with 2 guys and a skidsteer, it *might* take 2 hours, if they are good and have done it before and know what they are doing.
So, 6 man hours (remember the machine) equals $240 at a minimum. But, I still think 3 hours is more realistic for a total realistic cost of $360. Plus the aforementioned bare spot in the back. Not to mention no one in their right mind would garantee the shrub after it has been transplanted (at least I wouldn't!).
Yes, I have transplanted bigger things like this before. I know how long it takes. There is a cost/benefit analysis that you have to do to determine whether you think you should do it.
If it was a Japanese maple that was that tall (or even half that tall), I would be right there with you on moving it. It would be worth moving a tree that would be worth $1000-$1500 -- I've done it! (In the middle of July too! But that was a case where it had to be done in order for construction/demolition to continue. It was at a $2+ million house, so the homeowners could afford it.)</i>
I agree the photo doesn't have a specimen anything--home or landscaping. It is typical of cheap, uninspired, vulgar development that gets as much money as it can for the lowest expenses. Many times, the landscapes simply die. Here, it has survived, but is trapped in the distances laid down in a clumsy landscape design.
You suggest a cost difference of about $160. and a c/b analysis that would propel us away from transplanting. Fine. Seems to make sense.
But, let me think aloud. You start at ground zero with a felled yew and a new viburnum with classic prep and mulch. OK. That is cheaper than moving the yew and has no other concerns like a yew with a bad side.
You concede that the transplanted yew will improve, but the comparative dollars recommend a replacement.
But what if the replacement were a yew of the same size, nicely shaped with no bad sides? What would be that cost? I suspect your $160. difference goes all out of whack.
OK. Discount the flaw of an immediate bad side and reduce the costs. It's likely still out of whack.
A take down and replacemet is a base line. An equivalent yew repalcement is the upper line. The relaoction of my existing yew falls where?
It's just a few hundred bucks above your base line cost.
I'm not arguing about the choice of the species and what might be better. I'm talking about the cost of time. Not man hours. Time of the life of a tree in growing.
It doesn't matter if the tree grew here or in a nursey to attain the same size. The value, the extra value, is in its increased tangible growth and health.
That premium is dropped out of your analysis. It would be there in the context of someone calling you and wanting a tree like that, but it is a blind spot here.
What would it cost you to get that tree from a nursery? What would it cost you to pick it up and install the beast? What would be your overhead and margins?
What is the new comparative cost/benefit analysis?
I think this perspective is a fair and honest consideration. It generally isn't thought about given the replies. You imply it's easily obvious to you what becomes recommended. I suggest respectfully, to think about it.
And, I might go to the job, see it and absolutely change my mind. The devil is in the details. But, relocation is a viable alternative. Hell, it might even be an imperative--however it's spelled
<i>.
And lastly, I'm not trying to take a cheap shot here, but simply trying to make a point--- the fact that you are advocating "sliding it over on plastic" such as visquene or other heavy plastic tells me you haven't done much in the way of transplanting. Around here you use burlap, and I think that is pretty much standard for the industry. </i>
I don't care about cheap shots except to say that what I do on the job is dictated by what's there. I have standard practices and I have innovative urges. Whatever works is fine; whatever new that works is better.
Visqueen is reinforced and slippery. If I wrapped the ball in burlap, I still might slide it on plastic. Industry standards hold no magic for me. There were old ones replaced by new, and there will be new ones replacing the present.
I like to see many things as an evolution, not as static anchors. There wasn't a single engineer who didn't think I was a fool to hook a 4 mil plastic tube to a fire hydrant and move 300 gallons a minute through it without bursting. Worked fine. So much for standard thinking.
Arrogant? I put up with a lot of extended crap to push different ideas. I ought to be allowed to take some pride in those efforts--and I also ought to be able to say, I just don't talk about things; I do something about them--and encourage others that it feels good. Innovation is often its own reward.
As to transplanting, if we redid a park, I sent trees elsewhere rather than cutting them down for a new design. I even had a tree spade standing by when we moved a 727 through Jackson Park from a lake barge to the Museum of Science and Industry. I calculated we could angle the monster thru a row of Norways and if we couldn't, I'd pluck the whole tree out of the way and put it immediately back in place.
The Landscape Dept, in a fit of misinformation and uncoordination, anticipated the move by cutting back trees on both sides of the final street as if the plane were coming in for a landing!
Quite a difference in thinking, I'd say.
The wing tip just slipped though the maple, and the tree spade wasn't needed. The cost/benefit? The Museum picked up the tab for the spade standing by, at my request. The alternative to the stand by? One eternally malformed maple in a line of formal trees.<i>
I still think pruning/shearing would be the cheapest and easiest way to go. </i>
A) Pruning and shearing is the cheapest this year. And then next year...etc.
b) Felling existing and new viburnum; a bit more expensive with long deferred annual costs.
c) Wulkie sliding; a bit more expensive and looking awkward for a while--and maybe falling down in a big wind.
d) Felling the old and getting a duplicate yew to be put in a better place; suprisingly expensive--and so much so as to look back at the other alternatives.
I hope you inderstand, decisions generally become simple by ignoring the complications. Works fine for most of us most of the time, but I don't think that alone is the proof of the value of the technique.
Complications come back to haunt us, and I agree they won't likely be haunting us in the subject photo. But, they will haunt us elsewhere in our jobs as professionals, which is why I mutter about <u> routine practices</u> that quickly turn big trees into hazard trees--and we don't seem to notice or care.
Small item here; big item on a different job. If we can stretch our thinking here, maybe it can stretch elsewhere.
<i>
And Mike- I love your "very accurate measurements using digital imaging"!
Dan </i>[/QUOTE]
I enjoyed it too. But there is something scarey about an arborist turning artiste'.
Next thing you know, euc men will be shaping trees into flamingos.
Oh, the humanity...
Bob Wulkowicz
<i>Secondly, look at the cost of transplanting versus cutting down and replacing with something else.
Cutting down and replacement (say replacement with a viburnum for example):
Viburnum cost: ~$50
1 yard mulch cost:~$30
3 man hours to complete removal and replacement: $120
Total cost is approximately $200, and that is probably a high figure.
Transplanting:
You are looking at a minimum of 3 guys for at least 2 hours, probably 3 hours more realistically. Or 2 guys and a skidsteer, which should figure in as another man when estimating. I'm going to say with 2 guys and a skidsteer, it *might* take 2 hours, if they are good and have done it before and know what they are doing.
So, 6 man hours (remember the machine) equals $240 at a minimum. But, I still think 3 hours is more realistic for a total realistic cost of $360. Plus the aforementioned bare spot in the back. Not to mention no one in their right mind would garantee the shrub after it has been transplanted (at least I wouldn't!).
Yes, I have transplanted bigger things like this before. I know how long it takes. There is a cost/benefit analysis that you have to do to determine whether you think you should do it.
If it was a Japanese maple that was that tall (or even half that tall), I would be right there with you on moving it. It would be worth moving a tree that would be worth $1000-$1500 -- I've done it! (In the middle of July too! But that was a case where it had to be done in order for construction/demolition to continue. It was at a $2+ million house, so the homeowners could afford it.)</i>
I agree the photo doesn't have a specimen anything--home or landscaping. It is typical of cheap, uninspired, vulgar development that gets as much money as it can for the lowest expenses. Many times, the landscapes simply die. Here, it has survived, but is trapped in the distances laid down in a clumsy landscape design.
You suggest a cost difference of about $160. and a c/b analysis that would propel us away from transplanting. Fine. Seems to make sense.
But, let me think aloud. You start at ground zero with a felled yew and a new viburnum with classic prep and mulch. OK. That is cheaper than moving the yew and has no other concerns like a yew with a bad side.
You concede that the transplanted yew will improve, but the comparative dollars recommend a replacement.
But what if the replacement were a yew of the same size, nicely shaped with no bad sides? What would be that cost? I suspect your $160. difference goes all out of whack.
OK. Discount the flaw of an immediate bad side and reduce the costs. It's likely still out of whack.
A take down and replacemet is a base line. An equivalent yew repalcement is the upper line. The relaoction of my existing yew falls where?
It's just a few hundred bucks above your base line cost.
I'm not arguing about the choice of the species and what might be better. I'm talking about the cost of time. Not man hours. Time of the life of a tree in growing.
It doesn't matter if the tree grew here or in a nursey to attain the same size. The value, the extra value, is in its increased tangible growth and health.
That premium is dropped out of your analysis. It would be there in the context of someone calling you and wanting a tree like that, but it is a blind spot here.
What would it cost you to get that tree from a nursery? What would it cost you to pick it up and install the beast? What would be your overhead and margins?
What is the new comparative cost/benefit analysis?
I think this perspective is a fair and honest consideration. It generally isn't thought about given the replies. You imply it's easily obvious to you what becomes recommended. I suggest respectfully, to think about it.
And, I might go to the job, see it and absolutely change my mind. The devil is in the details. But, relocation is a viable alternative. Hell, it might even be an imperative--however it's spelled
<i>.
And lastly, I'm not trying to take a cheap shot here, but simply trying to make a point--- the fact that you are advocating "sliding it over on plastic" such as visquene or other heavy plastic tells me you haven't done much in the way of transplanting. Around here you use burlap, and I think that is pretty much standard for the industry. </i>
I don't care about cheap shots except to say that what I do on the job is dictated by what's there. I have standard practices and I have innovative urges. Whatever works is fine; whatever new that works is better.
Visqueen is reinforced and slippery. If I wrapped the ball in burlap, I still might slide it on plastic. Industry standards hold no magic for me. There were old ones replaced by new, and there will be new ones replacing the present.
I like to see many things as an evolution, not as static anchors. There wasn't a single engineer who didn't think I was a fool to hook a 4 mil plastic tube to a fire hydrant and move 300 gallons a minute through it without bursting. Worked fine. So much for standard thinking.
Arrogant? I put up with a lot of extended crap to push different ideas. I ought to be allowed to take some pride in those efforts--and I also ought to be able to say, I just don't talk about things; I do something about them--and encourage others that it feels good. Innovation is often its own reward.
As to transplanting, if we redid a park, I sent trees elsewhere rather than cutting them down for a new design. I even had a tree spade standing by when we moved a 727 through Jackson Park from a lake barge to the Museum of Science and Industry. I calculated we could angle the monster thru a row of Norways and if we couldn't, I'd pluck the whole tree out of the way and put it immediately back in place.
The Landscape Dept, in a fit of misinformation and uncoordination, anticipated the move by cutting back trees on both sides of the final street as if the plane were coming in for a landing!
Quite a difference in thinking, I'd say.
The wing tip just slipped though the maple, and the tree spade wasn't needed. The cost/benefit? The Museum picked up the tab for the spade standing by, at my request. The alternative to the stand by? One eternally malformed maple in a line of formal trees.<i>
I still think pruning/shearing would be the cheapest and easiest way to go. </i>
A) Pruning and shearing is the cheapest this year. And then next year...etc.
b) Felling existing and new viburnum; a bit more expensive with long deferred annual costs.
c) Wulkie sliding; a bit more expensive and looking awkward for a while--and maybe falling down in a big wind.
d) Felling the old and getting a duplicate yew to be put in a better place; suprisingly expensive--and so much so as to look back at the other alternatives.
I hope you inderstand, decisions generally become simple by ignoring the complications. Works fine for most of us most of the time, but I don't think that alone is the proof of the value of the technique.
Complications come back to haunt us, and I agree they won't likely be haunting us in the subject photo. But, they will haunt us elsewhere in our jobs as professionals, which is why I mutter about <u> routine practices</u> that quickly turn big trees into hazard trees--and we don't seem to notice or care.
Small item here; big item on a different job. If we can stretch our thinking here, maybe it can stretch elsewhere.
<i>
And Mike- I love your "very accurate measurements using digital imaging"!
Dan </i>[/QUOTE]
I enjoyed it too. But there is something scarey about an arborist turning artiste'.
Next thing you know, euc men will be shaping trees into flamingos.
Oh, the humanity...
Bob Wulkowicz
), but have noticed a seeming disregard for even simple spelling at times(ex.did anyone ever figure out what wideopens' problem was?). Working at a university and taking classes at the same time, I've had the opportunity to react with many students and it seems that there has been a steadily decreasing apptitude for spelling. My feeling is that when two bids go to a client for the same job and one of them is full of spelling errors and one is not, which one reflects better on the professionalism of the company. The best way to get that attitude of professionalism is to start at the basics. If the foundation isn't there........
