"ramification" is one of the most coveted (as in sin) and misunderstood concept in bonsai.
We view it as a "must" and that "must" tends to lead us towards ugly, or poorer than could be, design.
It's a concept that is hard to shake as a newb, one that shows it's face in this idea of "doing bonsai the same wrong way for 40 years".
We put the achievement of "backbudding" and "ramification" over what patience provides in terms of GOOD BRANCH STRUCTURE.
From this thread.
Hi All, I am working on a larch I really like, and I have been told development is too slow, and I should not trim it atall during the growing season. I am however inthe habit of trimming once I get 4-6 inches extension on the branches, and the inner foliage starts to get shaded out. I am now...
www.bonsainut.com
A
@leatherback tree with a couple years between utilizing a constant (stated) "paintbrush"(assumed) pruning.
And a
@ralf pad where growth is not trimmed until buds show so one can choose directionality of new shoots. (May/June).
I would appreciate a top down photo of the first, and an update on the second.
This may aid in clearing up some of the differences that make these quite "apples and oranges" still as far as comparing them ......
But I largely prefer the wonderful structure of the ralf branch. TAPER!
I think everyone would prefer the leatherback tree, which leads us to want to follow the constant pruning method.
That's the devil detail that keeps us foolish.
Though people may not prefer the ralf tree, they have to see he is doing excellent work to make use of what that tree is offering.
That said, I think the leatherback tree would be much better with the ralf branch structure. Which is obviously not full of "long internodes" as is stated he would have by not constantly pruning.
In conclusion.
"Perfect", will likely come from using all the tools and methods available, depending on the state of each branch/section, end goals, etc.
In the beginning of this lil research/figuring, I was thinking these larches, like anything with a recommendation of "constant pruning", are products of impatience. A little weak, and ramified with no taper. Pom pom destiny.
I believe it now.
Can't know for sure unless these owners add more pics, old and new, and speak a bit more of what they are doing. I think both can benefit from combining forces.
I don't understand how we believe removing energy add thickness.
I believe the growth rate, ie; fertilizer, water, general health and growing conditions, is what determines what side of the actual difference a tree lands on of this concept......
If a part is removed, time continues, during that time we lose thickness adding. Then after the new stuff grows, thickening resumes. A fast growing tree may overcome that loss of thickening time. (Sounds like lots of chemical fert)
Slow growing things may not.
It is our absolute inability to perfectly estimate and describe to each other what this growth rate is, that leaves methods working for one and not another. So a description of fert and other practices may help us to figure it out.
As it stands though....the slow game branch structure is superior.
Seems a tree we work a year early out of impatience which slows an excellent design.
Many are like this....people and trees.
Sorce
