Top tips for coppice cuts

10 years ago, two titans of the tree world engaged in a literary spat with robust cut and thrust, appropriately on the subject of coppicing and how high or low cuts should be made. Titan 1 was a classic unadulterated forester but it was more difficult to bestow an exact title on the equally expert Titan 2. However, everything considered, ‘arborist’ was probably the most appropriate designation. In no way does my numbering sequence indicate relative rank in expertise and experience.

The clash played out across the pages of a well-known publication and focused on the correct height at which to cut. It all kicked off when Titan 1 suggested arborists were cutting rods and poles too high from the ground (15 cm to 50 cm), wasting timber and leaving an untidy-looking and potentially hazardous site. The reason given was a perceived reluctance to bend down, with just a whiff of laziness thrown into the mix. Titan 2 took exception and replied using a historical angle about old boys with billhooks and bad backs, due to a lifetime of coppicing. As such, 20 cm to 30 cm was considered to be an entirely appropriate and convenient height. The billhook is Britain’s machete with a curved sharp end, and is the traditional tool used in coppicing.

The spat continued across several issues of the publication, with Titan 2 eventually enlisting support from the original expert on coppicing, no less than the British native Eurasian beaver, back in Britain after a 500-year absence and already living comfortably and well at home on the River Otter in Devon. “Be guided by Castor fiber which has a much longer history in coppicing than Homo sapiens,” was a crowning argument from Titan 2. Pictorial evidence was presented showing stumps of trees felled by beavers at 20 cm to 30 cm high.

Hornbeam ‘coppard’ on a Hampshire estate – the Arborista team in 2015 (left to right: Poppy Wilson, Ed Pyne and Ian Chedgy).

So, what are the whys and wherefores of cutting rods and poles close to ground level or higher up the stem, and is the height of cut generally different in forestry as opposed to arboriculture? Forestry-related arguments for cutting as close to ground level as possible revolve around maximising timber yield and providing a stable base and template for new coppice growth. Evidence suggests coppice spring arising from a higher cut becomes less stable with increasing age.

Coppice spring from ground-level cuts, as on the hornbeam stool shown here, is generally more stable with increasing size and advancing age.

Such considerations are essentially red herrings in arboriculture, where the regrowth is what I would call coincidental coppice, and consequent collateral of arb gangs clearing vegetation from parkland and commons every 10 years or so. Height of cut is not as critical as it is for forestry, although alder coppice poles on our local common are cut as cleanly and as close to ground level as recommended in commercial forestry. By the same token, a professional forester once showed me sweet chestnut coppice in East Anglia cut by another forester some 50 cm from the ground and clearly too high.

While doing some research on layering as a technique for the replication of hazel coppice, I saw first-hand how a hazel rod cut too high up the stem (two-thirds through, to leave a ‘tongue’) did not make good contact with the ground along the length, when laid on the ground.

Alder coppice, low-cut as per forestry style on a village common and carried out by arb gangs.

I can’t speak from experience but cutting too close to the ground, whether with billhook or chainsaw, presumably poses some risk, especially if large stones and rocks are present. However, as a plant pathologist, it has crossed my mind that cutting too close to soil level can run the risk of making coppice stools and stumps more vulnerable to infection by plant pathogens residing on debris in the soil through inoculum-loaded rainwater washing onto cut-stem surfaces.

Generally, I don’t see differences between forestry and arb in these respects because most professionals I meet and work within southern England are competent across both forestry and arb. Like the Essex forester who started life as a tree surgeon and is now 100 per cent forester, including coppice-related work and cutting timber using his own sawmill.

Coppice regrowth from higher cuts, as on the hornbeam shown here, may become considerably less stable with increasing size and age.

There is a Suffolk-based forester working for large estates, carrying out arb work in the grounds, around the houses, and performing pure forestry out on the estate.  And a Surrey-based professional running two companies side by side, one carrying out classical forestry and the other classical arb work.

Indeed, with fast falling away of productive softwood forest plantings in southern England over the last three decades, and looking set to disappear altogether (230 ha of new conifer plantings over the whole of England in 2018/2019), few professionals can afford to rely on commercial forestry. However, coppiced hardwood, providing continuity without new planting, is a saviour.

So, what prompted me to dig up this old story? The reason is British Beavers, back home after five centuries and already in the doghouse for clean-bowling a stand of cricket bat willows in the West Country. Beavers disappeared from Britain in the 16th century, not because they upset the cricketing fraternity, but because they were hunted to extinction for meat, fur and castoreum, a beaver secretion used in perfumes, food and medicines.

Failure to cut hazel rods sufficiently close to the soil means they do make good contact with the soil for rooting along the entire length.

Knowing I was not averse to the odd altercation, Titan 1 asked me to arbitrate. I submitted a piece to an appropriate publication but heard nothing. I guess the editor visualised these two titans squaring off, with billhook and chainsaw glinting in the early October sunshine, and decided woodcarving was a far safer option.

Author’s note:

There’s a timely warning for anyone indulging in beaver bashing because fur-bearing wild animals in general are making friends in high places. The Prime Minister’s partner, Carrie Symonds, who took an active interest in the UK badger cull, is now focusing on captive, enslaved monkeys used in Thailand to harvest green coconuts for the increasingly lucrative export of coconut water. The Prime Minister doesn’t appear quite so sensitive but clearly loves animal-related slogans. He adopted ‘whack-a-mole’ to describe government policy for dealing with local spikes of coronavirus, so if you run out of ideas, Boris, how about ‘bludgeon a beaver’?

Finally, if you coppice on the high side you might eventually be rewarded with a fine old ‘coppard’ – a contemporary term for a high-cut coppice or a low-cut pollard – take your pick!

Forestry Journal remains dedicated to bringing you all the latest news and views from across our industry, plus up-to-date information on the impacts of COVID-19.

Please support us by subscribing to our print edition, delivered direct to your door, from as little at £69 for 1 year – or consider a digital subscription from just £1 for 3 months.

To arrange, follow this link: https://www.forestryjournal.co.uk/subscribe/

Thanks – and stay safe.