I stopped by the tree forum because of another issue but want to make a couple of points. Some of the advice already given here is from a horticultural or arboreal perspective: the tree is thought of as THE important object. It denies the primary purpose that the tree serves: to be PART of a landscape... an artistic statement... a subordinate decorative object that adds character and interest--"dressing"--to the house... much as one would place a picture on the wall or a lamp in a particular location on the inside of the home. It is not intended to be a horticultural object grown for it's own sake like one might grow a solitary tree in a park or a tomato in a vegetable garden. It would be much more appropriate to think of this tree as one thinks of a neck tie for a man's wardrobe... not worn so we can see its entirety, but so that what we do see contributes positively to the well dressed man's overall image. The fact that 75% of a neck tie is hidden from view is immaterial. Likewise, growing this tree for a 360* view would be 100% against its designed purpose. What matters is that plants help promote the best presentation of the surrounding property. If it requires a contortion (as an espalier) or a horticulturally unusual juxtaposition (as a one-sided plant against a building) the plants will not care. They have neither thoughts nor feelings. In this particular case the tree is trying to help make the house look less like a large naked box sitting suddenly and abruptly on top of the ground. It's trying to ease the architectural transition to the outdoor world. It cannot do this well from a distance. The question posed for this thread is not really one of horticulture; it is foremost a question of art. When it comes to pruning, I'm not sure why extreme delicacy and caution is so often urged. The fact is, that this tree could be cut down to three feet height and by the end of the summer, half of it would be back in place. It wouldn't be as tall, but it would be thicker, fuller and have a better spaced trunk system. For the most part, the trunks would sort and space themseves uniformly like a giant bouquet... and such a form would not be an unpleasant looking object. It might be just what the house is asking for, but I'm NOT suggesting such drastic pruning. I'm suggesting that working with the trunk system already in place and making the best of it is a reasonable goal. I'm also suggesting work that doesn't need to "go slowly" or be delayed. It can all be done now and in 20 minutes with no unmanageable consequeces. Pruning is not the act of placing branches where one wants them. It is the act of removing them from where one doesn't. Since removing existing growth encourages new growth elsewhere, one merely hopes that it appears where it's wanted and can remain. It's wishful thinking to suppose that the tree itself will know where it should be growing branches and trunks in order to please the homeowner's need for an artistic landscape. It is the homeowner who should be dictating to the tree what is allowed and what isn't, in order to achieve the art form that best displays the house, and displays best against the house. Though the trunk system here is a modified combination, it's multiple trunk portion dictates most of the pruning decisions. Multi-trunk small trees look best with trunk spreads that are between 45* and 60*. The range is arbitrary. It's just what I've personally concluded after comparing hundreds of trees. And part of it depends on the tree's ultimate size and location. Generally, the larger a tree will become, the more fitting a narrower spread becomes. If space is tight, a wide spreading tree may become an obstruction. There's flexibility. Someone's different view of what a proper spread should be would not be in competition with mine; it would just be their different view of an artistic statement. Since this tree is already in its "teenage years" (in "tree terms") we'd not focus on radical changes, but just bring the trunk spread within an acceptable range, seeking to attain balance. The tree should should appear to be standing upright and not leaning strongly in one direction. Second, I'd give an overall trim to the top of the canopy for the purpose of attaining a relatively uniform dome shape; upper growth is currently leaning leftward. If greater control of size and increased canopy density is desired, trim to the "optional limit of canopy." (This "limit" is not ultimate, but is only advice about pruning now.) Third, I'd limb up all the twigs and branches that fall below the bottom of the desired canopy height. For a growing tree, a horizontal line established at 50% of the height is a good rule-of-thumb. See illustration below. It will allow for raising the canopy annually until the desired ultimate height is achieved... at no less than 8' or 9' ht. for the bottom of a canopy in typical situations. Notes about the illustration: I'd remove the trunk labeled "A." It creates an unbalanced, right-ward lean to the overall trunk mass. (See the sillhouette comparison.) Removing it brings the mass into better balance. Additionally, the same trunk is set at a low angle (approximately 45*) from vertical. As it grows and gets longer it has no choice but to get heavier. The added weight will pull it downward. It's not only conceivable but is entirely likely that it will be low and wide-spreading enough to obstruct adjacent passing space in the lawn. There is no reason to be purposely growing an unbalanced obstuction. If cut today, one would endure the work of a 2" dia. cut. If one waits until it becomes a problem before removing it, one may be making a 6" dia. cut (and corresponding wound) and disposing of 80 lbs. of yard waste instead of 8 lbs. There is no reason to wait for unpleasant news to be guaranteed. In the bottom illustration, remove all twigs and foliage below the green line unless it is a desired new trunk (more vertical than 45*) in the process of forming within the accepted range of trunk spread. If the homeowner decides to accept my advice, hopefully, she will report back with an updated photo showing the result.

These are old pictures . . .taken when my sweetie finished it. Things were still pretty messy. I had just put in the plants and snapped a few pics. This is the first planter he did for me. . nothing fancy. . made with old used bricks. I can try to get some new pictures after I get my grandbabies pictures downloaded. . lol ..granny had at least one grandchild 24/7 this summer. Yesterday was my first free day. Every time I came across one of their toys. . I teared up. . lol My second brick planter is in a crossing of two paths. Right now it has a pile of mulch and a pile of compost dumped very close to it. I had my sweetie dump a bucket load of each with his tractor the other day. I have plans to work . .that is if no more grandbabies show up before school starts. . lol I can try to get a picture of it but I may have to wait until I move one of the piles. These are not the best pictures but it will give you an idea of it. This planter is about fifteen foot long.

Here's the recipe I usually use, from a friend in Annapolis. It's pretty similar to some of the other recipes posted and is pretty light on the Old Bay. I'd like to try Marilyn's salmon cakes and just happen to have some fresh salmon right now, so maybe tomorrow will be the day. Delicious Crab Cakes 1 lb. crab meat (picked through) 1 teaspoon Worcestershire sauce 1 teaspoon mustard (regular) 1/2 teaspoon Old Bay 2 tablespoons mayonnaise 2 eggs (slightly beaten) 1 teaspoon parsley 2 pieces white bread - no crusts (I pulse it in the food processor, but a blender would probably work, too) Mix all this together - toss in crab meat last and donÂt overmix. Gently form into individual patties and refrigerate for 1/2 hour prior to frying. Fry in approximately 1/4 inch oil (I use half butter and half oil) about 4 minutes each side (or until nicely browned).

Cathy... the "comments" you're referring to were not mine, please re-read more carefully, it was directly quoted verbatim from a website dedicated to neem oil... it was actually the first website that popped up on a yahoo search for neem oil. The following below is lifted verbatim from a website that manufacturers and sells neem cake... "The quality of the neem cake is determined by the amount of oil left in it, and also the process by which the extraction was done.... neem cake is used as good organic manure in agriculture and also acts as pest repellent. The high Azadirachtin content in neem cake helps in protecting the crops against parasitic nematodes and as best soil conditioner... It accelerates root development and overall plant growth and protects the plant from Nematodes and white ants." Judging from the grammatical syntax, my guess is this is an India-based company selling to an English-speaking customer base... and make no mistake, it is a sales pitch. The claims of this seller are that it is wonderful for the worms, however that is not the point I was making... again you must re-read more carefully, it is that a worm bin is an eco-system with many other inhabitants (far more numerous) than just worms. And like all eco-systems, work best when a stable balance among the inhabitants is maintained... and insecticides (yes, even enzymes that indiscriminantly target whole segments of the eco-system) tend to upset any balance which ultimately may not actually be good for the worms or the plants. I believe balance is key for the health of all in an ecosystem, be it plant, animal, or the soil that feeds us all. Think about it, if plants didn't have a natural resistance to diseases and insects then the plants would have gone extinct long ago... the fact that they are not proves there is some natural resistance that can be compromised when the plant is stressed (which is why the disease or insect has not died out completely either)... there it is again - it is about balance. I believe if your plants are plagued by insects then perhaps the best solutions may not be found through attempts at destroying the perceived villains but rather one should seek improving the health of the plant so its own resistance can ward off the attacks. It is just an opinion I shared and that is all. BTW, azadirachtin is just a neem plant-based chitinase (which is an enzyme that accelerates the breakdown of chitin)... there are other plant-based chitinases that come from other plant sources (some are from kelp), they just have other names for each of those other chitinase (enzymes). People are free to do as they wish but it would be nice if they would come back after experimenting and provide a report of their findings so that others may draw upon any knowledge gained, one way or the other. Perhaps you will come back in the future and report back on your experiences... I'm sure that would be appreciated. And good luck in finding your solution.