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

[Adair M]

You mean that he bought?

What difference does the origin of the plant make?

Some like to grow from seed. Or cuttings. Or get stuff from Home Depot, Walmart, landscape nurseries, bonsai nurseries... whatever.

I personally don’t propagate. Not my thing. Others love it. Some like to take good material, even “finished” bonsai, and improve them. Others prefer to mess with starter material.

Mark Comstock, for instance, loves making good material for others to take to the next level. Starts with seeds and cuttings. I haven’t seen him mess with more refined trees. He collects trees, gets them growing in a box, then sells them to others to complete the transition from raw stock to finished bonsai. He’s doing what he enjoys!

Likewise, someone who likes working with trees, pruning and wiring, repotting and selecting pots for trees can buy Mark’s trees and have fun with them without having to wait 5 years. Nothing wrong with that!

There’s many ways to enjoy bonsai. Next thing, you’re going to be saying none of us made our own pots,

 

[Gustavo Martins]

It’s not impossible to get meaningful results from a study using paired contralateral branches (one as the experimental subject, the other as the control). Careful study design and selection of the appropriate statistical tests can overcome the variability. Similar kinds of studies are done in medicine all the time, quite successfully.

No it's not because in that design branches are not independent, the most basic assumption of all statistical analyses.

 

[Lorax7]

No it's not because in that design branches are not independent, the most basic assumption of all statistical analyses.

In preclinical studies in medicine, people do studies that compare an intervention on one side with no intervention or a sham procedure on the other routinely. They may have to use more elaborate statistical tests, but they are successful in doing these kinds of studies.

 

[Adair M]

I don't know Adair, your just fun to screw with. You make it easy.....Most of this forum just does this for fun...lighten up a little their just trees in pots....they have no feelings....
3

You want ME to lighten up? Look, Al, I just posted Peter’s blog, fully gave him credit for it, in hopes that others might learn something.

YOU jumped in here and tried to sully Peter’s and my reputation.

I am trying to stay above the muck and keep the discussion on the subject matter: bonsai. YOU are now using the forum to make personal attacks.

You said you would buy a tree, cut off all the branches, and start over. How is that any different than what I said Peter Tea advises? He says to build a trunk, THEN start building branches. Same-same.

If you don’t like the way I say things, well, there’s an Ignore button. I know you know how to use it.

 

[Lorax7]

In preclinical studies in medicine, people do studies that compare an intervention on one side with no intervention or a sham procedure on the other routinely. They may have to use more elaborate statistical tests, but they are successful in doing these kinds of studies.

But, whatever. Forget all that. Let’s trade roles, Gustavo. You can design and perform a study to test growing a branch wild and free vs. growing a branch while trimming everything but the terminal pair of leaves. And I’ll just sit back and relax and play the role of the naysayer, telling you “no, you’re wrong” every step along the way while not contributing much of anything constructive to the discussion.

 

[MichaelS]

no, the picture show the tree after the trimming/defoliating, not the subsequent effect it will produce at the end of the growing season, the fact this branch is still thin is the reason why he applied the technique to it, .... even i a non native english speaker understood it ....

It shows the effects of the technique applied the pervious year. Also, if removing the completion springing from along the branch helps to thicken it, why defoliate the secondary growth on the branch and not remove them completely? Either they slow the thickening or they don't which one is it?

 

[MichaelS]

Once again we cannot go back and edit mistakes! The line above should read.....
Also, if removing the competition....

 

[TomB]

No it's not because in that design branches are not independent, the most basic assumption of all statistical analyses.

Many statistical techniques are designed to deal with related observations. In this example you might use a paired-sample t-test.

 

[papymandarin]

Well, the amount of bad faith and the fact that it largely seems that the problem lies more about who gave the advice rather than the advice itself and what i would call "bonsainut politics" are really ruining the interest i have in this thread (which is only my probem i know). So have fun with your trees, and if you are a bit curious to go beyond your beliefs, just make some experiments with your trees. It's sad attempts at sharing things often end in such a mess.

 

[Gustavo Martins]

Many statistical techniques are designed to deal with related observations. In this example you might use a paired-sample t-test.

You can run whatever statistical test you want. Samples are still not independent. Results may be biased.

 

[Gustavo Martins]

In preclinical studies in medicine, people do studies that compare an intervention on one side with no intervention or a sham procedure on the other routinely. They may have to use more elaborate statistical tests, but they are successful in doing these kinds of studies.

Yeah. Medicine is not the best example of statistical analyses and, by its very nature, is too correlative in nature. You sure know that correlation indicates no causality

 

[Lorax7]

Yeah. Medicine is not the best example of statistical analyses and, by its very nature, is too correlative in nature. You sure know that correlation indicates no causality

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?

 

[Lorax7]

Yeah. Medicine is not the best example of statistical analyses and, by its very nature, is too correlative in nature. You sure know that correlation indicates no causality

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?

 

[papymandarin]

i find strange nobody asked for the experiments and control and "independant real statistics" demonstrating ...i don't know, whether defoliation really leads to smaller leaves, or flat boxes really help for building a nebari
when you don't want to admit something or even admit the possibility of something, just ask for unreaslistic proofs even you would be unable to provide to prove the opposite, old (used) trick

 

[Anthony]

@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

 

[papymandarin]

this is however completely off topic, trick number 2, create a diversion
lol

 

[Anthony]

No trying to reason out the why, and why this conversation
is going on for so long. Spinning Top in mud.

As I said before, drawn design, then we grow trunks and six branches in a colander
in a grow trough.
Proof is in the growing.
Good Day
Anthony

 

[papymandarin]

exactly, what makes the opinion of those who never grew anything using this technique irrelevant ;-)

 

[Deleted member 21616]

Please, excuse the off topic... I cannot but ask @derek7745 : Would you like to share what was the reason for your signature quote from Homer's Odyssey?

I'm a classicist, and I thought that the quote could funnily be read as describing a nebari-based purchase

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)

 

[Anthony]

Pappy,

the answer is - cultivar.

Example - Zelkova
Specific type - heavy build up of fine branchlet.
Technique - trained to use this cultivar to the max.

Problem - you must have this cultivar to get the same result
and you must have the training for this cultivar

So you advertise, and everyone has to purchase your cultivar
to get the same result.
Then they have to pay for the training in the technique.
Good technique for sales.

Lots of angry folk after they have wasted their time on
other Zelkovas.

Or what about the guy growing zelkovas from seed and
can't get the result?

We use the Chlorophora t. like the zelkova, elm type life.
Thus far 5 different cultivars found.
One has zelkova potential.
Others can't do it.
On the zelkova type, potential new branches with time
may exhibit even more fine branchlet capacity.

We give out the other four so others can learn how to
grow a C.t. and later give a large trunked one of the
preferred cultivar.
And still have to pass on the training how to.

We do not sell.

Experience ------- it is usually paid for.

So you all sit, and read, and then try, and finally have
to buy the cultivar, you have to pay to learn.
Old Chinese practice.
Good Day
Anthony