Most excellent Peter Tea blog post about summer work on Maples!

[Deleted member 21616]

@Lorax7 You can't use paired contralateral branches because anything you do to one branch could (or would, we would have to assume) have effects on the other branch.

You can't use the same tree to run the test.

You can't use two trees to run the test.

You can't use hundreds of trees to run the test.

If you really wanted to run the test, you would have to use hundreds of thousands of trees all over the world (millions, more likely), and under many of the possible conditions (while assuming that you have some way of controlling those conditions). And don't forget, you would have to use the same parent plant for all these tests unless you were somehow using a sample so large (under each set of conditions) that you could demonstrate generalizations.

Medical studies are performed in controlled laboratories at the level where sample cells/bodies behave in a generally similar way. Viagra works for just about everyone (and the pre-clinical trials showed this), because our bodies behave similarly at that level. When a pre-clinical trial can't demonstrate population-wide generalized and predictable outcomes, the idea does not become the standard practice in medicine. This is where we are on the topic of branch development techniques. (Both techniques work, and we surgeons can use either technique based on personal assumptions, experience, etc. Neither technique is overwhelmingly better than the other).

It's not a race to grow branches. Bonsai is an art, and a slow, patient art for that matter.

 

[papymandarin]

the technique works with any tree showing apical dominance, don't see how it can relate to cultivar or having to pay for material/knowledge....i have no costly tree nor have i taken courses or thing, still i was able to do my own experience about it

and about all the statistical argument, it's equally unrealistic for those agreeing/opposing to the technique. So again the "no way it can work" answer is again just an opinion out of nowhere. A simple and probably the most honest answer for those who never tried or heard of it would be simply be "sounds very strange to me but i don't know i never tried". However it seems that some people would rather have an arm cut rather than admitting that they don't know about something. I'm not sure it's the best way to make bonsai knowledge progress...

 

[Lorax7]

Done with this discussion. Go ahead and wallow in your ignorance and devotion to dogma. I will continue to grow my bonsai, continue to try out different techniques suggested by credible bonsai artists, keep the practices that work for me, and abandon those that don’t.

 

[Gustavo Martins]

You really think the NIH spends ~$31 billion/year on medical research just for fun? You don’t think any useful, reproducible, statistically valid results come from those studies?

The stats are good enough for trivial things like life & death treatment decisions, but you wouldn’t want to use them for something *really* important like deciding whether or not a bonsai technique works. Right?

Yes, I am saying that most studies in medicine are of correlative nature. You cannot manipulate humans due to ethical issues. So that's about the only thing left. Is it perfect? No, there are better ways. But it's the only way when working with humans...

But I am sure you already know that...

Just for the fun... These are highly correlated

 

[Deleted member 21616]

I will continue to grow my bonsai, continue to try out different techniques suggested by credible bonsai artists, keep the practices that work for me, and abandon those that don’t.

I think most of us agree on the above, but not the below.

Careful study design and selection of the appropriate statistical tests can overcome the variability.

Maybe this helps clarify things?

 

[Gustavo Martins]

@Lorax7 You can't use paired contralateral branches because anything you do to one branch could (or would, we would have to assume) have effects on the other branch.

You can't use the same tree to run the test.

You can't use two trees to run the test.

You can't use hundreds of trees to run the test.

If you really wanted to run the test, you would have to use hundreds of thousands of trees all over the world (millions, more likely), and under many of the possible conditions (while assuming that you have some way of controlling those conditions). And don't forget, you would have to use the same parent plant for all these tests unless you were somehow using a sample so large (under each set of conditions) that you could demonstrate generalizations.

Medical studies are performed in controlled laboratories at the level where sample cells/bodies behave in a generally similar way. Viagra works for just about everyone (and the pre-clinical trials showed this), because our bodies behave similarly at that level. When a pre-clinical trial can't demonstrate population-wide generalized and predictable outcomes, the idea does not become the standard practice in medicine. This is where we are on the topic of branch development techniques. (Both techniques work, and we surgeons can use either technique based on personal assumptions, experience, etc. Neither technique is overwhelmingly better than the other).

It's not a race to grow branches. Bonsai is an art, and a slow, patient art for that matter.

Well you don't need that many trees. Sure if you want to know how trees respond worldwide you've gotta have a good sample of tree species and different locations... For the sake of testing the two methods, a few plants to which you apply the different techniques and are grown interspersed within the same area should be enough... You may not be able to draw conclusions to all species in all places, but it should be able to draw conclusions for that species in those conditions...

The 6 year pine contest is a good setting to test some stuff. Lots of people growing the hundreds of individuals of the same species at different locations...

 

[Deleted member 21616]

Well you don't need that many trees. Sure if you want to know how trees respond worldwide you've gotta have a good sample of tree species and different locations... For the sake of testing the two methods, a few plants to which you apply the different techniques and are grown interspersed within the same area should be enough... You may not be able to draw conclusions to all species in all places, but it should be able to draw conclusions for that species in those conditions...

The 6 year pine contest is a good setting to test some stuff. Lots of people growing the hundreds of individuals of the same species at different locations...

Say you only ran the test with Deshojo, for arguments sake, and only in 1 small region of the world.

All trees same weather, but:
5-10 (?) trees with more water, afternoon shade, minimal wind
5-10 (?) trees with more water, afternoon shade, higher wind
5-10 (?) trees with more water, morning shade, minimal wind
5-10 (?) trees with more water, morning shade, higher wind
5-10 (?) trees with more water, partial shade all day, minimal wind
5-10 (?) trees with more water, partial shade all day, higher wind
etc.

Imagine all the other variables, all the other cultivars, and specific strains of each cultivar, not to mention the variability in the application of the technique (of removing side-shoots/leaves) itself.

There appears to be no significant or obvious widespread and general difference between the results that each technique yields, so if either technique has any advantage at all over the other it would have to be very situation specific.

I called 6 nurseries yesterday, and I got 6 different opinions. What I did notice, however, is that none of the people I spoke to made it sound like they had the best technique. In general, the people I spoke to (i.e. the people doing this on a day-to-day basis all year round for many years) were suggesting that i do "whatever works for me". I found this very pleasing.

 

[Gustavo Martins]

U

Say you only ran the test with Deshojo, for arguments sake, and only in 1 small region of the world.

All trees same weather, but:
5-10 (?) trees with more water, afternoon shade, minimal wind
5-10 (?) trees with more water, afternoon shade, higher wind
5-10 (?) trees with more water, morning shade, minimal wind
5-10 (?) trees with more water, morning shade, higher wind
5-10 (?) trees with more water, partial shade all day, minimal wind
5-10 (?) trees with more water, partial shade all day, higher wind
etc.

Imagine all the other variables, all the other cultivars, and specific strains of each cultivar, not to mention the variability in the application of the technique (of removing side-shoots/leaves) itself.

There appears to be no significant or obvious widespread and general difference between the results that each technique yields, so if either technique has any advantage at all over the other it would have to be very situation specific.

I called 6 nurseries yesterday, and I got 6 different opinions. What I did notice, however, is that none of the people I spoke to made it sound like they had the best technique. In general, the people I spoke to (i.e. the people doing this on a day-to-day basis all year round for many years) were suggesting that i do "whatever works for me". I found this very pleasing.

unless you have an hypothesis that the outcome of the two techniques varies with shade and wind I see no reason to include these factors in the design.

In field experiments you embrace natural variability and control only what you want to test. This is why that having replicates randomly distribute in space is so important. Any potential effect of factors other than the ones tests are randomly distributed across treatments and are hence not a confounding factor.

I recommend this book I you want to explore experimental design in greater depth. Underwood AJ (1997) experiments in ecology. Cambridge Univ Press

 

[bwaynef]

I, being a nerd, would rather have data, meaning actual measurements of stem thicknesses through the season of cleaned stems versus uncleaned ones with the node count of each recorded. A total of 8 trees, 4 in each treatment might be sufficient.

One data point does not make a trend.

Funny enough, I've got 8 trident maple seedlings growing in an 8-cell tray. (Same conditions.) I took 4 and trimmed them back to a central leader (they'd split to 3-4) and pulled leaves, leaving the top 4". The other 4 I left alone. You're going to have to get your own stem thickness measurements.

Debating what would happen when its easy enough to find out seems a bit NBW-ish (for all you forum vets).

 

[Anthony]

Pappy,

branch extension, can work as a side branch as well.
Been growing from seed for almost 40 years.
Observations.

Softwoods give the most dramatic response e.g. Ficus p.
Seeds are very variable, e.g J.B.pine or Tamarind
We have a tamarind that left the others behind - 3 inch trunk
in just under 8 months.

Normally a branch extension side or top at 76 to 92 cm will
give a trunk 2.5 cm of thickness.
As one grows a variety of trees, it becomes much easier
to manipulate this information.
As stated and illustrated before ficus p. can do all of this in 2.5 cm
of soil,and it's cousin the Chlorophora needs to be ground grown.

The next step, branchlet refinement, we do in large plastic
bonsai pots. The creation of branchlets apart from the ficus,
has no or very slow [ years ] effects on trunk thickening.

We use the cutting back for branchlets to create movement
in the branch and smaller leaves, with no need for defoliation.

All of the work seen here by us, is from only Lingnan - grow and
clip. We use wires to pull down branches, but not wire.
Us, is my brother-in-law [ hangs out on IBC ] and me.
We have quite a few trees using the Lingnan technique.

All started with Peter Adams [ emphasis is Design, he was an
Artist ] and an African who wrote a book - Kamuti [ 1970 ]
Good Day
Anthony

 

[papymandarin]

well i'm well aware that different trees have different growth abilities and defoliation is not a vital necessity to have movement and smaller leaves, i use mostly clip and grow too, but again i don't see how it relates to the topic.
And funny that you mention Peter Adams since he is one of those advising the technique too.

 

[Adair M]

@Adair M,

Sifu,

if I might abstract this, perhaps Al, having been on the scholarship committee
is upset because the recipient of the benefit showed, upon returning, no
justification for the scholarship.

No great training or abilities.

Good Day
Anthony

Anthony,

This comment is totally out of line! You have no idea of Peter Tea’s abilities!

He is very talented, and is sought after as a teacher, and headliner at bonsai shows and workshops, he does demonstrations and lectures for bonsai clubs all over the US.

 

[coh]

You've got to be kidding me. Didn't notice that comment (by Anthony) until you responded to it, @Adair M .

This place seems to really be going downhill.

 

[River's Edge]

@Adair M,

Sifu,

if I might abstract this, perhaps Al, having been on the scholarship committee
is upset because the recipient of the benefit showed, upon returning, no
justification for the scholarship.

No great training or abilities.

On our side you have - get a job and - vocation.
Vocation is = Research and breaking ground.
Get a job is = just make money.

As I have said before, Bonsai require both Horticultural and Design training.

From what I have observed over the years. Design is often most
lacking.

Mostly what you see is either copied from an existing Bonsai or
heavily mannerised work, hoping to be accepted as Naturalism.

Until, the Design aspect is not caught up with, well there is no
Art. Just rote training.

Anyhow, lastly, whatever you do in your backyard, grow from seed,
buy half done trees, or just purchase trees, is of no consequence.
It is when you exhibit publicly, that the opinions descend.
Especially if one is competing for a prize or prestige.
Good Day
Anthony

"I have heard that one's stature does not increase when stepping on others."
I know Peter personally, i have seen his work and spent time in Bonsai workshop activities with him, and i understand the respect he has deservedly received from those he teaches and interacts with. Your implication is absurd and should not be allowed on a public forum. I believe the correct term is defamation.

 

[my nellie]

I'm a classicist, and I thought that the quote could funnily be read as describing a nebari-based purchase
Funny thought, indeed!
Ι'm sure you know that there is a whole research and argument regarding the plant in question which is named by the Gods "μώλυ"
Because you seem interested, my avatar is Martin Heidegger, my favorite scholar of early Greek thought (though nowadays few people know him for this reason)

Thank you for replying to my question.
Well, that's enough distraction by my fault.

 

[Anthony]

Sifu,

the word is - abstracted - calling no names.

Frank,

you are dreadful liar, you said I was on your Ignore list.
Desiderata and all that malarkey.

Guys, I am trying my best to understand and lend an
understanding to the group. I didn't start this "war"

I will do my best to stay out of this.
Good Day
Anthony

 

[Adair M]

Sifu,

the word is - abstracted - calling no names.

Frank,

you are dreadful liar, you said I was on your Ignore list.
Desiderata and all that malarkey.

Guys, I am trying my best to understand and lend an
understanding to the group. I didn't start this "war"

I will do my best to stay out of this.
Good Day
Anthony

Anthony, I have no idea of what the word “abstracted” means when used in this context.

However, what did come across was that you believed “the recipient of the benefit, upon returning, showed no justification of the scholarship”. Smoke didn’t say that. But the way you said it makes it seem that 1) that’s what you believe; and 2) that’s what Smoke believes.

I think you should retract your statement, and apologize to all parties.

 

[Gustavo Martins]

Check 07:50. Lots of side branches to make the trunk fatter. That's what they say

 

[Smoke]

Anthony, I have no idea of what the word “abstracted” means when used in this context.

However, what did come across was that you believed “the recipient of the benefit, upon returning, showed no justification of the scholarship”. Smoke didn’t say that. But the way you said it makes it seem that 1) that’s what you believe; and 2) that’s what Smoke believes.

I think you should retract your statement, and apologize to all parties.

I think you should retract your statement, and apologize to all parties.

What you think means nothing here. This isn't about you.
I have no dog in this hunt but everyone here has to be responsible for what they post. This thread is about what someone wrote and it has been posted here and the person whom wrote it has no voice in the matter. It is not for the forum to police the action of others here. We are not guilty until proven innocent. The fight here is between Peter and Anthony Via a proxy post from Adair who seems to be speaking on behalf of the author of a blog site.

Adair posted the link and each is afforded the opportunity to respond to it. Anthony did. It is not the responsibility of Adair to make an accusation one way or the other. What Adair thinks about Anthony can be made abundantly clear and the reputation of Anthony is judged by what he says. But Anthony owes nothing to anybody here except maybe to the author if he wishes to come here and respond. Adair must accept the responsibility of reading what anyone wishes to say about Peter and like it or lump it, thats the way it is......

Thats why I asked Adair to post his own crap and then things like this won't happen.

 

[Adair M]

Check 07:50. Lots of side branches to make the trunk fatter. That's what they say

That video was made in the 1980’s. That technique isn’t used any more.