When did chopping trunks come around?

[rusticana]

I'd imagine its been going on for centuries. Or even from the conception of penging/bonsai origins. I think other cultures were involed too.
But with the advent of the modern nursery, enthusiasts clued in they can find a good specimen and cut it down. Sometimes in the discount section because trees suited for this purpose can be hard to sell as a garden tree? Beware though. What the nursery sells may not necessarily be what its labeled. Like its not guarenteed. The only way to do that is a cutting from the mother tree.

Should ad. Seeds take so long. And that for city folk collection can be out of range. Also protected areas and private property. Especially with a specific tree in mind the nursery could be the place for you. And thus the trunk chop ensues.

 

[rockm]

I find it funny that Westerners assume this technique is "a few decades old" just because it didn't firmly appear on the Western radar screen until the 70's or 80's. The thought that because it didn't appear in the Sunset Bonsai book therefore it didn't exist is laugh out loud funny.

If the Japanese, Chinese and Koreans figured out how to exploit growth in so many species to adapt them to container culture, why is is such a leap to believe they drastically reduced tree trunk to form them into bonsai? A trunk chop is basically the same practice of pinching being done on twigs and branches performed on a trunk. It's just larger and more noticeable.

The practice has been around since bonsai began. One might also argue the technique is fundamental to the art. It is a foundation stone. Yeah, some trees are grown from seed or pinched back saplings, but if you're paying attention to decent old bonsai you understand that they're mostly NOT. They're mostly made by cutting down larger trees into bonsai not growing them up from seed. Growing bonsai from seed is largely a romantic myth in the Western world, as is going out in the wild and plucking perfect little trees off of mountainsides. It's mostly fantasy.

 

[penumbra]

I find it funny that Westerners assume this technique is "a few decades old" just because it didn't firmly appear on the Western radar screen until the 70's or 80's. The thought that because it didn't appear in the Sunset Bonsai book therefore it didn't exist is laugh out loud funny.

If the Japanese, Chinese and Koreans figured out how to exploit growth in so many species to adapt them to container culture, why is is such a leap to believe they drastically reduced tree trunk to form them into bonsai? A trunk chop is basically the same practice of pinching being done on twigs and branches performed on a trunk. It's just larger and more noticeable.

The practice has been around since bonsai began. One might also argue the technique is fundamental to the art. It is a foundation stone. Yeah, some trees are grown from seed or pinched back saplings, but if you're paying attention to decent old bonsai you understand that they're mostly NOT. They're mostly made by cutting down larger trees into bonsai not growing them up from seed. Growing bonsai from seed is largely a romantic myth in the Western world, as is going out in the wild and plucking perfect little trees off of mountainsides. It's mostly fantasy.

I have no doubt that the technique of hard cuts on trees has been from the very beginning in China long ago. After all, the original source of these trees was from collection. But I think that much of the art form developed from trying to find ways around this wild sourcing which was primarily for the very wealthy. There are stories from ancient China of wealthy rulers taking trips for periods of months with an entourage of dozens or more to satisfy their cravings for the rarest, oldest and best of these wild sourced trees that often required hard cuts of tops and roots.
As this art form was adopted by the Literati and classes lower, methods of producing the traits desired were broadened to include many of the methods we use today.
I think the above reply is very lucid and accurate as far as it goes and would agree that many, if not most of the worlds greatest bonsai may have come from large cuts, I don't believe it is as relevant in today's fast food culture. I think that all of the tricks and tips we have learned and developed to produce the illusions of bonsai are evolving continually and are absolutely valid ..... and brilliant.
I make large cuts on many more trees today than I did decades ago based upon some of the cuts I made 35 years ago, but at my age I have to be really selective in my methods and know that I don't have that kind of time to invest any longer. I will never own Master Class bonsai, I am simply enjoying my journey.

 

[ShadyStump]

I find it funny that Westerners assume this technique is "a few decades old" just because it didn't firmly appear on the Western radar screen until the 70's or 80's. The thought that because it didn't appear in the Sunset Bonsai book therefore it didn't exist is laugh out loud funny.

If the Japanese, Chinese and Koreans figured out how to exploit growth in so many species to adapt them to container culture, why is is such a leap to believe they drastically reduced tree trunk to form them into bonsai? A trunk chop is basically the same practice of pinching being done on twigs and branches performed on a trunk. It's just larger and more noticeable.

The practice has been around since bonsai began. One might also argue the technique is fundamental to the art. It is a foundation stone. Yeah, some trees are grown from seed or pinched back saplings, but if you're paying attention to decent old bonsai you understand that they're mostly NOT. They're mostly made by cutting down larger trees into bonsai not growing them up from seed. Growing bonsai from seed is largely a romantic myth in the Western world, as is going out in the wild and plucking perfect little trees off of mountainsides. It's mostly fantasy.

You're absolutely correct, but I don't think anyone is necessarily arguing that it's something new under the sun, only that it's prevalence in the practice has become greater in this generation than in past, and speculating on why.

Modern books on bonsai will invariably discuss everything related to hard trunk chops, but books from half a century or more ago do not. The only reason for this that I can surmise is that the technique has grown in prevalence quite recently, and perceived importance; just as instruction from the 19th century or earlier did not include anything about wiring, yet today we come across people preaching that, "bonsai is wiring, and wiring is bonsai," as if there were never any other way. Despite wire existing in some form for many millennia, we all admit that this shift has something to do with the industrial capacity for mass-producing cheap wire. There was very likely someone with access to wire who used it many centuries ago, but it wasn't common practice until relatively recently on historical scales.

We're just saying there's similar phenomena at play today.

 

[rockm]

You're absolutely correct, but I don't think anyone is necessarily arguing that it's something new under the sun, only that it's prevalence in the practice has become greater in this generation than in past, and speculating on why.

Modern books on bonsai will invariably discuss everything related to hard trunk chops, but books from half a century or more ago do not. The only reason for this that I can surmise is that the technique has grown in prevalence quite recently, and perceived importance; just as instruction from the 19th century or earlier did not include anything about wiring, yet today we come across people preaching that, "bonsai is wiring, and wiring is bonsai," as if there were never any other way. Despite wire existing in some form for many millennia, we all admit that this shift has something to do with the industrial capacity for mass-producing cheap wire. There was very likely someone with access to wire who used it many centuries ago, but it wasn't common practice until relatively recently on historical scales.

We're just saying there's similar phenomena at play today.

Sorry no.

Just because a new crop of newbies are learning about it and trying to use it DO NOT make it "more prevalent" nowadays. Hell JOHN NAKA's trees made in the 60's used trunk chops extensively, from Goshin to, well, the list is long...It was pretty well-known back then, it just wasn't being printed in books and the Internet was still ARPANET and a private network.

I've been doing bonsai for 30 years now. It was part of the tool package back then and pretty well know. The same arguments against it were made 30 years ago (weird looking, artificial etc).

 

[penumbra]

I don't see how this can be a matter of right or wrong.

 

[ShadyStump]

I don't see how this can be a matter of right or wrong.

I don't think it is at all.
I keep drawing the parallel in my mind of historians debating whether they're discussing the history of a thing versus the historiography of a thing; what happened versus what we know about and how we perceive it happening.
An analog might be our understanding of the labor force that built the pyramids. For the longest time it was assumed for various reasons that it was all slave labor, directed under a brutal whip. A century of archeology later we now know that it was a very well organized and cared for system of government employ. Now, given the modern arguments for the concept of, "wage slavery," are the 2 notions mutually exclusive? That's a whole other can of worms to crack.

I feel like we're doing the same thing here. We all agree it's always been a thing if for no other reasons than, "nothing new under the sun," and, "if it's stupid but works." The debate is whether it's somehow taken on greater importance in our minds now when compared to past generations. I think there are a great many arguments to be made that it has.

At the end of the day, though, it's completely unimportant. Discussion of the history of bonsai techniques is right up there with the discussion of bonsai aesthetics; people gonna people, so don't overthink it.
Still can be fun to talk about it though.

 

[rockm]

These are the same questions asked about trunk chopping 30 years ago. I was there and one of the people asking about it back then.

It's not like some parallel to historians and pyramids. It's like not noticing pregnant women all your life until your wife becomes pregnant, then you see pregnant women all over the place. They've been there, you just haven't noticed them. They didn't appear because of some historic in-the-moment precedent.

FWIW, look at Naka's Bonsai Techniques II. In the front 100 pages (can't remember exactly where), there is a photo sequence of the creation of JN's Montezuma cypress. There's a photo of the starting stock--a 10 foot tall nursery tree. It was his first bonsai and begun in the 1940's. The pages go through development. He doesn't mention "trunk chopping" by name, but by the end of the sequence, the 10-foot tall tree is its current three feet tall. The tree lost seven feet in there somewhere. The link above isn't the sequence by the way. Also Vaughn Banting's famous flat top bald cypress, created in the 70's. Obvious trunk chop as well.

I'm not trying to be "right" just to put this in perspective. Every generation of bonsaiists goes through a learning cycle and has moments of epiphany about how bonsai are created. That moment isn't historic. It's just part of the learning process. I don't think there's some wave of sudden recognition going on.

 

[Youngling]

I think as someone who started in the past handful of years it's so prevalent that I'm not sure what it would look like to grow one WITHOUT chopping. Sacrifice branches? When is a chop not a chop?

Like I know Valavanis grew his fantastic maples in pots, but I also know folks who have had trees in pots for 20 years that don't look remotely thickened or developed. Are they just not letting it grow out enough before trimming? The tree I'm thinking of was a willow leaf ficus that he had kept in a bonsai pot and holds it up as proof that it can't be done, but Valavanis kind of proves it can be...

I have this same vagueness when it comes to this. I think it's one of those things you only really get after seeing it in person or hands on, in person training from a professional. I am only now getting glimpses of it when looking at some trees i put in pots 10 years ago. Seeing the gradual thickening and movement created with more frequent cuts, slow growing and natural ageing. But it still confuses me. When do i pull a tree to work roots? Why cut back now when i can get more trunk/branch thickening quicker? This is why i love going through Nigel's videos.

 

[Cajunrider]

I don't think it is at all.
I keep drawing the parallel in my mind of historians debating whether they're discussing the history of a thing versus the historiography of a thing; what happened versus what we know about and how we perceive it happening.
An analog might be our understanding of the labor force that built the pyramids. For the longest time it was assumed for various reasons that it was all slave labor, directed under a brutal whip. A century of archeology later we now know that it was a very well organized and cared for system of government employ. Now, given the modern arguments for the concept of, "wage slavery," are the 2 notions mutually exclusive? That's a whole other can of worms to crack.

I feel like we're doing the same thing here. We all agree it's always been a thing if for no other reasons than, "nothing new under the sun," and, "if it's stupid but works." The debate is whether it's somehow taken on greater importance in our minds now when compared to past generations. I think there are a great many arguments to be made that it has.

At the end of the day, though, it's completely unimportant. Discussion of the history of bonsai techniques is right up there with the discussion of bonsai aesthetics; people gonna people, so don't overthink it.
Still can be fun to talk about it though.

I thought chopping the trunk was the cut and grow method. Would someone please explain the distinction?

My recent experiments with the apex replacement of bald cypress show to me that I can create a BC bonsai with no scar bigger than 1" in diameter to heal. As the apex grows to be around 3/4", I will bend it hard and promote a side branch to be the new apex. As soon as the new apex begin to grow fast, the old apex is cut off. In my estimate, the trunk growth with be about 1/5 to 1/10 the rate of the big chop method where I let the tree grow freely for 5 years or more then make a big chop.

BTW, my 1/5 to 1/10 is based on my estimate of the ratio of foliage available on the tree to collect energy from the sun to fuel growth.

 

[dbonsaiw]

Great discussion. Bonsai development always requires some sort of growing and cutting. What I understand as "cut & grow" is a development process in which the leader is cut back on a more frequent basis than what we would typically refer to as a "trunk chop". Under the trunk chop method, the trunk is grown to about the desired final thickness and then cut to about 1/3 of the final height. A new leader is then grown. Assuming we are shooting for a more substantial trunk, we will end up with a more substantial wound/scar when we make this first cut. IMO, there is no comparison to the growth rate of the trunk if the tree is allowed to grow freely - I believe free growth will get you a thicker trunk faster. The "cut & grow" method trades speed of trunk thickening for smaller scars as we are letting the apex grow for a season and then cutting it back. The smaller apex leaves a smaller wound which will heal faster. Putting aside issues relating to the time needed to develop a tree under each of these methods, I think the more important question is what do these different approaches actually produce in a "final" product? I've heard people say that "cut & grow" produces a more refined tree. If that is indeed the case, I would gladly trade some time for a better result. I have also heard that more extreme taper is really the realm of the big chop.

A lot of this discussion seems to assume that we are growing a tree from a seedling and have the luxury of choosing between the two methods. A number of my trees are big box/field grown and will require a full-on trunk chop to progress. I have found that I am employing a hybrid method with some of these trees where I am essentially chopping the tree at 2/3 of the intended height, developing the bottom 1/3 with sacrifice branches, healing the scar at 2/3 and growing the remining top 1/3 in a sort of modified cut & grow. I am considering doing this on a dawn redwood that I let grow wild for a few years and even the vachelia I grew from seed.

 

[johng]

trunk chopping became popular when sumo style bonsai began to be accepted...

 

[baron]

Trunk chopping has always been there as far as I have been told. It's a way of producing starting material/prebonsai and gaining taper.
Just like compacting bigger trees with bending down techniques.

People who have been doing bonsai for 40+ years, tell me this is how they managed to produce their material in Europe before importing from Japan was a major thing.
And I'm quite sure the trunk chop technique has been used in Japan to create material too. It just a matter of having enough patience to let the material recover and heal before considering working on it again, even if it takes 10, 15 or 20 years..

For what it's worth, I consider it a trunk chop when you cut down to almost nothing (a node or a single branch).