# Cutting the top off a hemlock?



## chrisn (Dec 23, 2007)

Cutting the tops off will encourage SOME lateral growth, but in a hemlock, not much, sorry about that. If you had started going it years ago, you might have what you want. If you go the route of removing and re planting, I would go with Leland Cypress for very quick growth or Arborvitae for slower growth( and easier maintenance down the road)


----------



## CoconutPete (Jan 22, 2010)

chrisn said:


> Cutting the tops off will encourage SOME lateral growth, but in a hemlock, not much, sorry about that. If you had started going it years ago, you might have what you want. If you go the route of removing and re planting, I would go with Leland Cypress for very quick growth or Arborvitae for slower growth( and easier maintenance down the road)


Is there a better chance of "success" AKA the tree "taking" and not dying out after planting with either of these?


----------



## chrisn (Dec 23, 2007)

The Cypress would be hardier and relatively free of pests.The arborvitae would be fine also, but is much slower to grow and does get some pests( bag worms, mites). I don't know where you are, so it might be wise to go to you're local nursery and ask them.


----------



## CoconutPete (Jan 22, 2010)

Thanks I think I'll do that. This is in Central CT.

Like I said, not attached to the hemlocks but if I could avoid chopping them down and more importantly getting rid of the stumps  I was willing to give it a shot.

Off to the nursery in the springtime I guess :thumbsup:


----------



## Thunder Chicken (May 22, 2011)

Watch the arborvitae as well - they can grow 20+ ft if left to their own.


----------



## CoconutPete (Jan 22, 2010)

Thunder Chicken said:


> Watch the arborvitae as well - they can grow 20+ ft if left to their own.


20' is fine. My only problem with the hemlocks is that there's nothing left on the bottom except the trunk and dead branches.

I'm looking for separation on the bottom 6' - I don't care what happens up top.


----------



## Windows (Feb 22, 2010)

CoconutPete said:


> 20' is fine. My only problem with the hemlocks is that there's nothing left on the bottom except the trunk and dead branches.
> 
> I'm looking for separation on the bottom 6' - I don't care what happens up top.


It is a real shame to cut down a slow growing and long lived tree before it has even reached it's prime. If I were in your shoes I would clean up the bottom part of the trunks, get rid of the dead branches and even trim up the tree a little if necessary, and then find a shade tolerant plant that will act as the screen you want, and plant it between or around the hemlocks. Older trees like that can add a lot of value to a property and to the neighborhood - might be rash to cut them down.


----------



## chrisn (Dec 23, 2007)

He has a point:yes:


----------



## chrisn (Dec 23, 2007)

Thunder Chicken said:


> Watch the arborvitae as well - they can grow 20+ ft if left to their own.


True but it will take them 30 years (at least) to do so.


----------



## CoconutPete (Jan 22, 2010)

Windows said:


> If I were in your shoes I would clean up the bottom part of the trunks, get rid of the dead branches and even trim up the tree a little if necessary


Already did that when I built my deck. Branches don't really start until about 8' or so up and run all the way to the top. Top of the tree looks great.



Windows said:


> and then find a shade tolerant plant that will act as the screen you want, and plant it between or around the hemlocks


Any suggestions? I'm very open to this idea if you have a suggestion for something that might actually grow there.


----------



## chrisn (Dec 23, 2007)

CoconutPete said:


> Already did that when I built my deck. Branches don't really start until about 8' or so up and run all the way to the top. Top of the tree looks great.
> 
> 
> 
> Any suggestions? I'm very open to this idea if you have a suggestion for something that might actually grow there.


 
Little hemlocks:laughing:


----------



## CoconutPete (Jan 22, 2010)

Not a terrible idea if they like the shade. I will probably be in this house for another 5 yrs, but we will have outgrown it by then.

The current hemlocks are so big they get a decent amount of sun, but a small one planted between them won't get nearly as much.

Are they really shade-friendly?


----------



## Windows (Feb 22, 2010)

I wish I could give you some specific suggestions. I only have knowledge of west coast plants. Larger green houses often have at least one local plant expert. THat is who you need to talk to. Given the vastness of the plant kingdom, there has got to be something that would work.


----------



## chrisn (Dec 23, 2007)

CoconutPete said:


> Not a terrible idea if they like the shade. I will probably be in this house for another 5 yrs, but we will have outgrown it by then.
> 
> The current hemlocks are so big they get a decent amount of sun, but a small one planted between them won't get nearly as much.
> 
> ...


----------



## CoconutPete (Jan 22, 2010)

No worries. I buy the occasional planter at Lowe's, not plants.

There's a mom & pop nursery near me, I'll check them out in the spring.


----------



## tractorfarmer (Jan 4, 2012)

I would stay away from anything fast growing. That leaves you with the same problem you have now where the bottom branches die off. And they are dying off from lack of light, which isn't always a bad thing. (Weeds grow slower.) 

Hacking the tops off the trees will make them look bad imo. I would either cut them down and start over or leave them as is. But anything that you find that grows well in low light likely won't give you the privacy you want. 

It sounds like you might be best with a fence.


----------



## jamesjr (Jun 4, 2010)

I am in the east but rododendrum or mountain laural would work hear


----------

