That pruning paint argument my dad was wrong about

A younger climber watched me paint a big oak cut last spring and said I was wasting my time. I told him my dad had done it for 30 years. He pulled out a study from 2019 showing the paint actually traps moisture and decay in oaks. I grumbled but stopped doing it on live cuts. Six months later I checked back on that tree and the untreated cuts looked better than any painted one I had done before. I still use it on deadwood or storm damage but nowhere else now. Anyone else had an old habit they had to drop because the data was too obvious to ignore?

3 comments

3 Comments

lunaf6717d agoTop Commenter

Calling it a waste of time is a little strong. I get the science, I do. But I've seen painted cuts on some real beat up old trees in my area that are still going strong 15 years later. Maybe the data is right for healthy trees in perfect conditions, but out here where everything has some rot or bug damage already, the paint still buys you time. Plus my dad would roll over in his grave if I stopped doing it completely.

noaht1516d ago

Ever notice if the paint actually seals out moisture better than letting it dry natural on those beat up trees, or is it just holding in rot you can't see yet?

lunag3016d ago

Oh man, that hits close to home. My grandpa was the same way about painting cuts, I swear he'd mix his own weird recipe with tar and who knows what else. @lunaf67 you make a solid point about beat up trees though. In my experience, the science is great for perfect lab trees, but out in the real world where everything has some disease or bug damage already, a little paint probably can't hurt. Plus, I'd rather look silly painting a cut than risk having grandpa's ghost haunt me for not doing it, haha.