Dr. Shigo himself made this comment:
"I could either go with the book (theories) or go with what I saw in the tree. Either the books were wrong or the trees were wrong. I chose to go with the trees," Shigo says.

So now that he's the book, why not take his advice and think that perhaps the book doesn't apply to bonsai? He himself said ......go with the trees. If we stick our head in the book (his writing) and say, this is the book, this is the only right answer, then we are going against the very thing he stood for.

We raise bonsai. Bonsai are trees in pots......not massive intertwined forests-what he says holds true for the trees he dealt with. Unfortunatly for us, he did not turn that curiosity in our beloved
bonsai direction.



Dr. Shigo says:

"Cuts should be made as close as possible to the branch collar, but the collar should not be injured or removed. Removal of branch collars - flush cuts are major starting points for many serious tree problems - cankers, rots. cracks, insect infestations"

I'd like to see a bonsai tree done where all of the branch collars are not removed. Since we remove branch collars, his advice doesn't necessarily apply to bonsai.

Here's another piece of advice from Dr. Shigo:

"Do not amend the soil, unless the soil is very poor"

So, if we go by what Dr. Shigo says, that means no bonsai soil mixes because those are all amendments. Honestly, who plants their bonsai in potting soil and keeps them in that same soil? We all amend it. But, if we go by his word and only his word, we are doing it wrong. Are we? I think not!

Dr. Shigo also says to not top a tree. Well.......every time one does a trunk chop, we are topping the tree. Does this kill the tree? Not if done on the right species and with the right timing and care. Should we stop this because Dr. Shigo says not to? Kiss the Broom style goodbye! We can top our trees because they aren't the same trees Dr. Shigo is referring to.

Depending only on one source for advice, and a source that doesn't deal specifically with the subject you do, is akin to sticking one's head in a hole in the sand. I hate sand in my ears personally.

Dr. Shigo also has no references to bonsai in any of his work. Nor does he reference high quality cut paste-he speaks out against asphalt based and other paint ons. I definetly wouldn't paint my tree with tar . However, again, he never mentions cut paste in our application.

He also doesn't recommend wiring a tree (we do), cutting off large amounts of branches (we do), restricting roots (ditto), etc...... were one to go with all of his recommendations we'd be out of bonsai and into landscaping.

Will Heath wrote:There is absolutely no difference in the way a tree grows or responds to injury based on if it is in the ground or in a container.

I personally see nothing "shaky" about comparing how trees deal with wounds in nature (lighting, wind, snow, animals, etc) and how they respond to pruning at the collar or by bonsaists attempting to mimic the damage caused by natural forces. Trees do not know the difference and have no care what-so-ever if it was a rock slide or a nice clean, new pair of concave cutters or jinning pliers that did the damage, the response is exactly the same.

Again The Wikipedia tells us "Dr, Alex Shigo is widely considered the father of modern arboriculture. He developed many of the principles that have become central to arboriculture, and his work served as a foundation for much of the research following it." And that "Dr. Shigo's discoveries went against many arboricultural conventions that existed prior to his research. Many techniques that were staples of arboriculture for hundreds or even thousands of years were shown to be unnecessary or harmful. It took many years, but Shigo's conclusions have been confirmed by other researchers, and a wealth of discoveries are now built upon his initial work. Current ANSI standards for tree pruning reflect his recommendations."

I respect the right for each person to use whatever methods or potions they choose, but personally, when cut paste is labeled worthless by a mind such as Dr. Shigo (dead or not), I think I'll base my actions on his research. At least until someone equally qualified convinces me otherwise.

Until then, I'll continue not wasting my money on cut paste and I should state that I have seen no ill effects, in fact I have seen no difference at all. I will also leave the debate to the sources and studies I have referenced in the article, those sources are far more qualified than I am.



Cheers,


Will

Will,
If you feel you ware wasting your money on cut paste then by all means quit spending it. But your statement, "There is absolutely no difference in the way a tree grows or responds to injury based on if it is in the ground or in a container" is eminently falsifiable. If there were no difference in the way a tree grows ...in the ground or in a container" would indicate that there should be no difference in soil, for one thing. How trees respond to injury is up for debate, and simply declaring it a myth by quoting arboriculturists is intellectually dishonest. Let's see some actual studies on bonsai.

In the meantime, I'll "waste" my money on cut paste, considering how long a $15 tub actually lasts.

Now for toms favorite.........foliar feeding. I'm kinda tired so this will be short .

On a plant such as my beloved Portulacaria afra, foliar feeding would be useless. Is this because it doesn't work? Nope. In this case, the waxy coating of the leaves would prohibit effective absorption before the liquid would run off. Ditto for any conifers.

However, on a softer leafed plant foliar feeding would work. And foliar feeding has proven to be effective, especially for adding trace nutrients.

A really good study using tomato plants was done here :

http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/load ... 42430.html

Very conclusive experiment, and several literature sources for those who like to delve further!
Foliar feeding does indeed work on some plants.

Here's more:

Dr. H.B. Tukey, renowned plant researcher and Head of Michigan State University's Department of Horticulture back in the 1950's, working with research colleague S.H. Wittwer at MSU, first proved conclusively that foliar feeding of plant nutrients really works. Researching possible peaceful uses of atomic energy in agriculture, they used radio-active phosphorous and radio-potassium to spray plants, then measured with a Geiger counter, the absorption, movement and utilization of these and many other nutrients within plants. They found plant nutrients moved at the rate of about one foot per hour to all parts of the plants. Comparing efficiency of plant use of foliar-fed nutrients versus soil-applied nutrients near roots, they found foliar feeding provided about 95 percent efficiency of use compared to about 10 percent of use from soil applications! Likewise, speed of absorption and use by foliar applications was immediate, whereas from soil applications absorption and plant use both were very slow, thus providing a major benefit of foliar feeding where a specific plant nutrient deficiency may exist, be it major or minor plant nutrient.

http://www.ext.vt.edu/news/periodicals/ ... 11-03.html

Long story short........ plants can and do draw nutrients in through leaves.

Chris Johnston wrote:.... But your statement, "There is absolutely no difference in the way a tree grows or responds to injury based on if it is in the ground or in a container" is eminently falsifiable. If there were no difference in the way a tree grows ...in the ground or in a container" would indicate that there should be no difference in soil, for one thing. How trees respond to injury is up for debate, and simply declaring it a myth by quoting arboriculturists is intellectually dishonest. Let's see some actual studies on bonsai.

Chris, think about what you are saying here.

We change the environment the tree grows in, the tree does not change the way it grows. Trees in nature grow exactly the same as trees in cultivation, there is absolutely no difference in the growth processes what-so-ever. Some may say that growth is slower or restricted, but this has to do with rate of growth, not how it grows.

There is no debate on how trees respond to injury, this process is well documented by minds far greater than our own.



Will

nsmar4211 wrote:A really good study using tomato plants was done here :

http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/load ... 42430.html

The garden web forum you linked to uses a study from the '50's to support foliar feeding. I mentioned this study in my article, a quote follows:

"The problem is that most of these claims are based on some research done by Michigan State University in the 1950’s in which, by the use of raidolabeled nutrients, it was determined that the leaf is a very efficient organ for absorption. The amounts absorbed were actually very low but the efficiency was high, leading to false claims that foliar feeding was many times more effective than soil applications. "

"The common myth of foliar feeding is based on misreading and/or misinterpreting research done over 40 years ago. Since that time it has been shown that foliar feeding is ineffective in almost every aspect promoted by the companies that sell products designed for the practice. In fact, foliar feeding has been shown to work the best only in the case of soil with low nutrient availability, in other words, when a plant has no other option for nutrients. As bonsaists, our soil would never reach the level needed for foliar feeding to do any good.

Bonsai need nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium the most, as do any other plants and these nutrients are the very ones that foliar feeding is the worst at providing."

n my article, I made no claims that nutrients were not asorbed by foliar feeding, what I said was that the process was ineffient and was lacking in many ways, all spelled out plainly.


I would, with all these myths, welcome serious sources (recent) for rebuttal.

I look forward to seeing a worthwhile debate on the items up for discussion. I'm not sure any of these myths have been debunked in my mind - but I am partial to having my myths debunked by Adam, Jamie, Kari, Grant and Tory. Especially Kari. These guys and gal rock!

If one is going to use Dr. Shigo's research as the only true book, done in the 70's, one should give consideration to research done in the 50's. Well, one doesn't have to, but to do otherwise is not keeping a mind open to possibilities .

The tomato experiment came about because of older studies, yes. However, the experiment itself was done in 2005.

The title of the article was "Debunking the Myths of Bonsai". I had to go look up the definition of debunk as I always thought it meant "prove undeniably wrong". Hey, I was wrong!

"Debunk: to expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of" (Oxford Dictionary).

I wasn't aware that just ridiculing a myth was debunking it... pretty neat. But, people also ridiculed others who claimed the earth was round and cited studies done that proved the earth was flat... that doesn't mean they were 100% correct .

So, back to what I was aiming for, using my personal definition of debunk (to prove completely wrong).

People have been "proving" myths wrong for years, heck, they made a whole TV show out of it-Mythbusters. However, even the mythbusters show has three categories, not true or false. They have "Busted" , "Plausible", and "Confirmed". They also point out that even a Busted myth can be retested under different circumstances and retitled "Plausible". This can go the other way also.

Anybody who has ever worked in the field of science knows that given a different set of circumstances, an experiment that gave a negative can give a positive. That's why we have "Theories" and not Facts.

I'm more interested in the times when something is *not* a good/useful idea versus saying never ever do this. For instance, foliar feeding is not a useful thing on Portulacaria-not because it is a myth, but because due to the structure of the leaves it would be a waste of money. Cut paste is a waste of time on a conifer due to the sap production. Foliar feeding would work best on a soft leafed plant-if I had a japanese maple it'd be something to consider.

Gotta go poke around a bit and ask some more sources to come up with a list .

Adendum: Graydon, I didn't bother to click your link and figured those names were bonsai people I'd never heard of. Interesting to see we both went with the same example LOL. Perhaps post it on their bulliten boards? Nah......not enough fire and explosions.

Will Heath wrote:

Chris Johnston wrote:.... But your statement, "There is absolutely no difference in the way a tree grows or responds to injury based on if it is in the ground or in a container" is eminently falsifiable. If there were no difference in the way a tree grows ...in the ground or in a container" would indicate that there should be no difference in soil, for one thing. How trees respond to injury is up for debate, and simply declaring it a myth by quoting arboriculturists is intellectually dishonest. Let's see some actual studies on bonsai.

Chris, think about what you are saying here.

We change the environment the tree grows in, the tree does not change the way it grows. Trees in nature grow exactly the same as trees in cultivation, there is absolutely no difference in the growth processes what-so-ever. Some may say that growth is slower or restricted, but this has to do with rate of growth, not how it grows.

There is no debate on how trees respond to injury, this process is well documented by minds far greater than our own.



Will

I always think about what I am saying. But your sources are not speaking to the major pruning difference between bonsai and landscape trees: cutting below the collar. Oaks in the landscape will cover a stub very quickly if pruned just above the collar. In a bonsai pot they will not. You are debunking a landscaper's myth. It has little to do with bonsai, horticulture not-with-standing.

Will I respect your choice not to use cut paste, thats your propagative. However, I would ask that you take of the blinders and entertain the notion that a sealant may have some possible benefit and that science is based on theory and there are no absolutes.

They say pictures are worth 1000 words. So I offer some side by side comparisons of trees that have used cut paste and some that didn't. Even a tree or two that for whatever reason got cut paste on some pruning cuts and some that didn't.

The first set of of pictures is of an elm that both pruning and caring were done at the same time. In the first image cut paste was applied, the second image no cut paste was applied. The the difference in healing is quite noticeable


This picture is of a Japanese maple that when trunk chopped had no cut paste applied while one side did callous the other side did not. The side that didn't slowly died of from the chop line and receded over the years till the whole side died off. It still survives today but has been relegated to being a parent tree for cuttings and will never see its potential of being a bonsai.


This shimpaku had cut paste applied to on portion of the trunk (first pic) while another part did not (second pic) The rate of healing is very noticeable between the two images and in fact the wound with cut paste maintained the cut line and didn't recede as is their trait


I believe this image speaks for itself. This hornbeam has two prune marks which were done at the same time and are side by side. The top wound received cut paste the lower one didn't.


Another Hornbeam that has several prune marks the lower ones had no cut paste applied and the upper large one did. For this photo I peeled back the cut paste (which is still evident) to show the benefits of cut paste preventing rot to promote callous formation. The wood covered by the cut paste is still rock hard and smooth as a baby's butt.


I believe these images follow Dr. Shigo's belief,
"I could either go with the book (theories) or go with what I saw in the tree. Either the books were wrong or the trees were wrong. I chose to go with the trees"

I thought about this today and all my simple mind could come up with are these 2 things:

1. If cut paste is outlawed only outlaws will use cut paste.

2. You can pry the cut paste from my cold dead hands.

Slow day for me, sorry. Keep up the debate.