It depends on what is behind the trees and which way the trees are facing. If there is nothing behind you could take off the bottom branches and that might let in enough light.

Really though if you like the trees better than a garden find somewhere else to put a garden. You could grow tomatoes in pots and one small raised bed can produce a vast quantity of produce. There are plenty of books and sites with gardening in a small space plans

I'm fond of trees. That being said, however, I would not chain myself to one (or several) if it (they) HAD to go.

Trees can be replanted, but limbing up is forever so I'd really think that over before taking a saw to perfectly healthy trees. Groundsweep is infinitely more attractive than a grove of poles. And yes, any licensed, bonded, and insured arborist/tree company would be capable of climbing and limbing.

In either case, limbing or logging, you're opening up the chance for an explosion of understory growth - things that never oould compete for sunlight before.

If even for nostalgia's sake, could the vegetable garden be relocated? You really can squeeze a lot of produce out of square foot and vertical gardening as mentioned above.

In our state (and I'm certain in yours, too), we have a forestry service that will come out to your land and tell you what to do with the trees (if they are big enough to log, etc.). They should be able to tell you if logging or pruning up is most feasible at this time, and help you with more information.

You're assuming that the problem is sunlight, but the fact that the herbs are thriving suggests it may be something else - root competition from the trees resulting in too little water or nutrients for the veggies, or maybe even escalating acidity as the amount of dropped foliage from the trees increases as they grow and shed more every year. The herbs can usually handle drier, harsher conditions than vegetables can.

If you "want it to be like that again" then you will have to control all the variables that are affected by the trees. Limbing up your trees won't reduce the amount of active roots in the soil, and the amount and possibly the spread of dropped debris won't decrease much.

Your dad had it right. At least some of those trees will have to come down if you want a productive garden.

We tend to think of trees as victims needing protection from humans because of the global deforestation issue, and on that level, our view is correct. But living up close and personal with trees is a different matter.

Even if you love trees, which I do, to live with them successfully you have to understand that trees are essentially thugs: they are perfect competitors in a fight to the death. Where you see one huge aged tree, some 14 or maybe 40 small trees and many other plants will have grown at the outset, a few hundred years ago. The one you see outcompeted its colleagues for the available resources. Trees don't DO co-operation, live and let live, or give and take. They just take. You and the forest cannot peacefully co-exist; the forest, or rather the few victorious trees that succeed in dominating it, will achieve its objectives at the expense of yours. Unless you force your will on it, it will force its will on you. It's not malicious, you understand; that's just what they do.

So the reality of trying to grow vegetables in the forest is that you will have to outcompete the tree for the resources you need. Its weapons include a network of roots that you would not believe with the capacity to go wherever you put water or nutrients for your vegetables. You need a chainsaw (ideally handled by a tree removal crew) and some serious determination to compete with that.

If you don't want to grow vegetables, and are willing to grow steadily fewer herbs and berries too, then of course you can leave the trees in peace.

At least, that's what I've learned from trying to garden beside big trees.

KarinL

Some other considerations:

How large is your property? If you cut down enough trees for a vegetable garden, will the forest still be just as thick beyond what you've cut down: a backdrop to the garden rather than a looming presence? If the people who own the neighboring properties ever decide to clear-cut, what will your situation be -- will there be enough trees left on your property??

Just as trees are not always friendly to adjacent plants, so they are not always friendly to people and their buildings. Are any of these trees likely to fall onto your house due to storm or lightning? It does happen....

It's hard for those living in other parts of the country to imagine just how heavily 'forested' many rural and even suburban areas of western WA are. I currently live in an area not more than 20 miles away from downtown Seattle, a very urban metropolitan city of nearly 2 million residents, and I can't even see my neighbors because of the density of the conifers - Doug firs, western red cedars and hemlocks. And all the associated native undergrowth. Even in the city, it is unusual not to find large native conifers in every neighborhood.

KarinL is correct - if you want to have a successful vegetable garden, it either needs to be moved well away from any of these very big trees (with even larger root systems) or some of the trees need to go. Limbing up will let in more light but it won't solve the problem of dry, rooty soil that is robbed of nutrients.

It sure sounds like tree removal rather than tree pruning will get the best gardening results. Of course there might be a combination for an overall landscaping plan.

If you're essentially rejuvenating a landscape toward a specific goal of how you want to use your property, and are going to remove trees, you have an opportunity to be intentional about how to optimize where you do veggie gardening and what trees come out. I say optimize because you may have compromises to allow you to get the best overall solution. Here's an example: Let's say your parents grew peas in place X because long ago that's where they grew best or there was space or whatever. If you could have your garden anywhere you wanted, where would that be? (Issues of views from house or elsewhere, convenience, water source, tools, etc might come into play for some folks). Are there reasons why that's not the best place to take out trees, and why, and are there less "worthy" trees (or more worthy if you get $$ for logging) that on balance should be the ones to sacrifice for your garden. And vice versa. So you noodle a bit about what would be your ideal tree-scape and your ideal garden-scape and try to make a good fit.

Also some decisions may depend on whether there are major economies of scale (in residential tree work we would usually get a big price break on several trees at once vs. one each year, natch) vs. being able to do things incrementally--do you need to make all your big tree decisions at once if smaller jobs are not of interest or not economical, vs. do part and live with effects through several seasons.

Wow! A lot of response and questions....

to answer a few of the questions:

Question: If even for nostalgia's sake, could the vegetable garden be relocated?

Answer: Well, our property is surrounded by trees, except directly behind the house, to the south. My father had that little bit logged so he could get HD tv ... or whatever it was. Though, there's not a lot of flat land directly behind the house. It's mostly down-hill. I don't think there's a better place for the garden.

Comment: In our state (and I'm certain in yours, too), we have a forestry service that will come out to your land and tell you what to do with the trees (if they are big enough to log, etc.).

Response: My father worked for the forest service most of his adult life. I probably should ask them to come and look. I'm not sure if that's something they do ... but they might come over as a favor. Thanks for the idea. :)

Comment: You're assuming that the problem is sunlight, but the fact that the herbs are thriving suggests it may be something else

Response: Wow. I actually never considered that. I think you're probably right ... and that changes everything.

Question: How large is your property? If you cut down enough trees for a vegetable garden, will the forest still be just as thick beyond what you've cut down: a backdrop to the garden rather than a looming presence? If the people who own the neighboring properties ever decide to clear-cut, what will your situation be -- will there be enough trees left on your property?? Are any of these trees likely to fall onto your house due to storm or lightning?

Answer: It's just under five acres. We will still have plenty of forest -- but it actually pains me to see the trees cut down. That's my childhood playground we're talking about ... I'm pretty sure we won't see the neighbors even if the forest around the garden was logged, but I'm not sure. I'd have to have professionals look at the property line, I suppose. .... and yes, our trees are close enough to the house, that they could fall down on us in a storm. We have had trees fall during storms, but we've been lucky enough to not have them fall on the house. It may sound crazy, but I'd rather take my chances. I've already agreed to have one tree logged to protect the house (it was leaning) ... the rest can stay.

Thank you for your replies. After considering that the trees might be taking all the nutrients away from the vegetables .... I think I might like to log around the garden -- just a few trees, see if that makes a difference for next year's garden.

You state "I think I might like to log around the garden -- just a few trees, see if that makes a difference for next year's garden."

Maybe you should also do some soil amending, to make up for what the trees have taken from the area.

It's wonderful that you're able to live there! Feel sure you'll be a good steward.

Rosie, Sugar Hill, GA

Read the Edibles chapter of The Complete Shade Gardener by George Schenk before doing any cutting.