One must compare groups of plants treated one way versus another group treated the other way, not just one specimen of each way. There will, of course, be variations in each group because of any number of uncontrolled/hidden variables (such as the plants, the weather). In essence, the worst/least of one group must be better than the best/most of the other for there to demonstrate a positive result of the treatment. Mathematical statistics gives us a way to draw this distinction more precisely.
Not really. If you use infinitely many plants then for sure there will be a plant with the bad treatment doing better than the plant with the best treatment. One may be hit with lightning. The other with a beam of magic.
If you test with many many plants, you can even show very reliably that 0.01% of the treated plants respond positively to treatment with cut paste. You can get a result that shows that this effect is with 99.999% certainty not caused by chance. But you need a lot of plants for that.
You indeed use statistics to see how likely it is that your test variable, be it a certain fungus or just a death count, deviates from what you would expect if the treatment has no effect.
If you test with just 4 plants, 2 treated and 2 control, there are quite good odds that the 2 control plants by pure chance do better on your test statistic than the treated plants.
You need to use a larger number and decide what is statistically significant. If the result you get is a result you would get by chance only 1% of the time, that's pretty statistically significant, meaning that in 99% of the cases your experiment shows the treatment has a certain effect.
Of course with plants the problem is that you need to do it outside and if you have 200 plants, they won't all be in exactly the same spot.
Also, plants would be exactly the same. If I go out to a nursery and buy 200 2 euro azalea plants, some will be different from others. But if I buy enough of them the law of large numbers will take care of that.
Shigo and others did exactly these kinds of experiments. You don't have to do them anymore.
If you believe that bonsai azalea, or any species for that matter, react entirely different to pruning than normal plants, then indeed you need to use 400 euro bonsai, meaning you will never know. You will never know if they work. Yet here people confidently claim it does.
That you ask for just 800 dollar for two azalea bonsai just shows me you do not understand. If you did, you'd ask me for 200,000 dollar.
When we can't do an experiment to be sure, let's just admit we don't really know for sure.
It doesn't have anything to do with me or my experience. Some of these botanical claims can be tested scientifically. Yet people here fervently postulate you need to do this exact thing for these exact reasons. The only arguments given is 'My plants look fine.' and 'Japanese masters taught us this and they make the best bonsai'. But the truth is, cut paste may be ineffectual or mildly harmful while at the same time your plants do look absolutely fine and these Japanese masters are the greatest source of knowledge on azalea bonsai. I don't dispute those two last claims. I agree. Those plants look fine and Japanese bonsai masters know the most about azalea bonsai. But that doesn't mean anything in a discussion on cut paste. Obviously applying cut paste can't be a death sentence. Otherwise, people would have figured out it is truly horrible. So likely it is mildly bad. Not enough to kill them often enough for people to notice. But when you carry out a careful experiment you find out it makes no difference, so you waste money and time, or that it is mildly harmful.
There's actually plenty of good quality bonsai artists that do not use cut paste. They also have fine results. But that in itself doesn't mean they aren't doing harm by applying no cut paste. If applying no cut paste does harm, they can still have fine trees.
You say you saw an azalea without cut paste die from dieback. Did I say anything to suggest this cannot possibly happen?
Two reasons - you get heated up way to easy. And @Harunobu knows Azalea I mean really knows Azalea. On the subject however I did not need pictures for you to prove what works for you, I believed you... I am going to suggest it may be a very good practice to follow but what seems to be missing here is that not all things work the same for everyone, everywhere, every time. It does for you and I understand - really. What others experience is different for a wide range of reasons. Many do not need a topical that addresses fungal issues, many do. It is a wide open subject and I certainly don't look at your advice as bad or good and needs to be used when a situation dictates so. Climate and the condition of the plant along with the type needs to be considered... It really is all important and as with light and substrate could be argued for no real reason...
