guymayor
Branched out member
- Location
- East US, Earth
[ QUOTE ]
4.18 heading: The reduction of a shoot, stem or branch back to a bud or to a lateral branch not large enough to assume the terminal role. ANSI A300 part one. So in essence, "endo" cormic reduction. Why then does it's companion publication, ISA pruning BMP, call such pruning cuts "topping" and "should not be used" on page 24? These two publications should each support the other but they are troubled siblings.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, that is an issue. A300 is rightly conservative about change, but in this case ISA seems even more so. Look to the wording there on shrubs for a similar issue, where stuff gets repeated despite an obvious (to many) need for change.
Why? don't ask me; I'm only the piano player. Maybe the authors or publishers know.
There is room for a lot more "should"s than the 1/3 criterion imo, but they have to be well founded.
4.18 heading: The reduction of a shoot, stem or branch back to a bud or to a lateral branch not large enough to assume the terminal role. ANSI A300 part one. So in essence, "endo" cormic reduction. Why then does it's companion publication, ISA pruning BMP, call such pruning cuts "topping" and "should not be used" on page 24? These two publications should each support the other but they are troubled siblings.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, that is an issue. A300 is rightly conservative about change, but in this case ISA seems even more so. Look to the wording there on shrubs for a similar issue, where stuff gets repeated despite an obvious (to many) need for change.
Why? don't ask me; I'm only the piano player. Maybe the authors or publishers know.
There is room for a lot more "should"s than the 1/3 criterion imo, but they have to be well founded.
