cornell study.

[mountainvan]

seems the antimicrobial spile did as well the 2nd year of use as the 1st according to Cornell . good science at Cornell. Actually testing the real spiles and various adaptors. seems someone stated scientifically that they would only last one year. guess they were wrong.

[DrTimPerkins]

seems the antimicrobial spile did as well the 2nd year of use as the 1st according to Cornell . good science at Cornell. Actually testing the real spiles and various adaptors. seems someone stated scientifically that they would only last one year. guess they were wrong.

Ahhh....the totally "unbiased" booster of the antimicrobial spout is back again. I agree that Cornell does good science. You imply through your statement that good science is not done elsewhere. I guess I would agree with that if you are referring to the manufacturer of that particular product....although more appropriately you should be saying that no science has been done (or at least none has been produced), unless we count the amazing work you did (described earlier).

So, given that you are such a good scientist....why do you think Cornell achieved better results with the antimicrobial spout the 2nd year than UVM PMRC did? Might it be because they ran a BORE brush through the spout, thereby exposing NEW plastic material? Why would they do that....it isn't something that either the manufacturer recommends or that most producers would do on their own (how many producers are either going to run a bore brush through each spout in the woods, or cut them off their drops to bring in to do it)? Cornell likely choose to do this because of the results from PMRC. If brushing hadn't been done, their results would have likely matched ours. It was a reasonable thing to try given the information available.

Further, you neglect to point out that compared to an old drop and spout, the Cornell Research Found:

New spout and drop = 120% more sap
Leader CV spout adapter = 101%
Silver spout (2nd year brushed) = 72% more sap
2 yr old drop and spout = 31% more sap

So a silver spout that had been brushed still was not able to come close to a CV adapter EITHER YEAR of Cornell testing, despite the far higher cost of the silver spout.

Yes, you can do somewhat better with a totally new drop (dropline and spout), but that will cost you about $1 per year compared to $0.36 for a CV, plus the labor of bringing the new drops out into the woods and installing them (and bringing the old drops back from the woods). So, in cost/benefit terms, the CV is still the clear winner.

[Thad Blaisdell]

To me the Cornell study was not exactly what I would have been looking for. In my opinion the set-up leans heavily in favor of exactly what the check valve would be good for and against any other spout. First they are running vacuum way too low, 16-17 inches. That to me is as silly as it gets. When most modern systems are running upwards of 27 inches. Dont get me wrong I am not bashing cv spouts just this test. Also they are turning the vacuum to the tree on and off a lot more than a normal woods. Again in favor of what the cv is made for. I know that in my woods the vacuum comes on and stays on. The only time it goes off is when the system is completely frozen, and then it may still be running. I would like to see the same test done with high vacuum and use electric releasers with water meters. I know this year that the cdl spouts did just as well as the cv's that I had. When I finally shut the system down they were both still running, and I could see no difference in volume.

I did use and will use the cv spouts on a section that has a manual releaser but I will not be using them again on the rest. Simply a cost thing.

[DrTimPerkins]

I know this year that the cdl spouts did just as well as the cv's that I had. When I finally shut the system down they were both still running, and I could see no difference in volume.

Hi Thad (and all),

As I have always said, the CV is a solution to back-flow introducing microbes into tapholes. The less opportunity there is for back-flow, the lower the positive benefit you will find. There are a bunch of things that affect sap yield and differences between treatments and studies: vacuum level, type of releaser, pump management, leak checking and fixing, etc. We try to control for those differences as much as we can to only look for 1 (or with the right design, 2 or 3) different effects. Also, it is important that there be statistical replication (more than one "experimental unit" per treatment). That is one very important distinction between us and producers, as well as between good science and poor science.

All that said, we didn't shut our pump off all season either, and our vacuum levels ranged from a low of 22-24" Hg in one study to 27" in another, with the other two running about 25" Hg (we use different sections of woods with different pumps for various studies). We do have a mechanical releaser though. We did see a significant positive benefit of CVs again this season in 4 out of 4 different tests this season, essentially the same results we've seen for the past 4 yrs now. Cornell has found BETTER results than we have with the CV, but that is because their controls are older, and thus likely more highly contaminated than our control tubing. The ONLY thing we have found that beat CVs is replacement of the entire drop (dropline, tee, and spout), however due to the cost and labor involved, it is not economically worthwhile to replace drops each year (the loss of sap yield in a drop after even one season is very high) . In our testing against CDL and other types of new spouts (replacing just the spout), the extra yield in sap gained by using the CV has always far exceeded the cost of their use.

Although you are to be commended for your high yield practices, there are many producers out there who are using older tubing systems and vacuum pumps and cannot achieve high vacuum levels. Maybe the Cornell vacuum level doesn't apply strongly to your system, but it does to others, and having a variety of different conditions being tested is valid.

I would be interested in hearing how you measure volumes. Just visually looking at flow coming in through the pipe, the sap may still be flowing in various treatments right to the end. However you can only be sure of the yields if you carefully measure and record the volume throughout the entire season. We often have a primary CALIBRATED way to measure sap volume, and 1-2 other backup systems to verify the volume. There is quite a lot involved in getting good measurements....and that includes measurements with flowmeters. An incorrect installation can really give you incorrect values.

[Thad Blaisdell]

Dr Tim,

I will admit that my actual methods of telling what trees does what sap is limited. But I do have one station of 1800 taps that are on cv spouts that I can tell exactly what they produce. Using that number I can calculate what the total cv spouts have done and then give a fairly good guestimate on the whole. At the end of the season they were fairly close in production. I will say that the cvs were giving me slightly (very slight) more as they were on the north and east side of the hill, but on the other hand I know that earlier in the season they were not giving me as much.

[DrTimPerkins]

I will admit that my actual methods of telling what trees does what sap is limited.

Yes, I well understand the difficulties of getting good measurements. :)

Half of research is coming up with a question that can be answered. The other half is coming up with a way to measure the variables and exclude other factors.

Being that UVM PMRC does research, we can devote the energy and resources necessary to be sure the experimental setup is done correctly, that we take very precise measurements, and that all our studies are internally replicated (more than one sample unit per treatment so that we can do statistics) and that we have adequate controls to compare our results to. In addition, we are often able to do complimentary studies -- several similar studies at different levels (individual trees, small groups of trees, and several hundred trees) all looking at nearly the same thing. That let's us know whether our results are consistent. Lastly, we often repeat a study for a year or two before we start talking about results very much. This is to ensure that the annual variation doesn't overly impact the results we see.

We can go to all that trouble because it is our business after all, and is what we train for all those years getting graduate level degrees. I don't expect that most producers would go to the same extreme....that is not the business they are in, would just cost them time and $, and would probably reduce their profit. We on the other hand can do studies that we know won't give the best results, but are done simply to provide comparisons. Most producers don't do this....they do what they think will make them the most syrup and $. Unfortunately that doesn't often provide the same level of information (or level of inference) that a highly controlled research study does.

Still not sure exactly how you are measuring sap yields. If I understand correctly, you are using one area with 1,800 taps to infer the production of 10,000 taps. So you're measuring sap from less than 1/5 of the total number of trees? And these are in a different aspect than other areas? How do you measure the sap volume from the non-CV areas?

What many non-scientists don't understand well is the concept of replication (no....not that kind of replication). Statistical replication is necessary in science. If you have two things you're trying to tell apart, but only one sample of each, statistically you can't say ANYTHING about whether they are the same or different. For example....you have a dog and a cat. Are they they same, or are they different? Well....some people would say they're the same....both are animals, both make good pets, both have four legs and a tail, both have fur. Some would say they're different....one is a canine and the other a feline. Often dogs are bigger. One growls, the other purrs. Now if you have 10 dogs and 10 cats, then you can start to see the patterns that make them truly different. Same thing with science. If you have one tree with a bucket...that's one sample. If you have 10 trees running into a chamber or tank....that's ONE sample. If you have 10,000 trees all connected to one mainline with a tank or water meter at the end...that is ONE sample. If you have two different pipelines with 5,000 taps on each, but with different treatments (new spout vs old spout) for each pipeline, you have only ONE sample per treatment. That isn't science....there is no replication. So basically any difference you see MIGHT be due to the treatment effect (new spout vs old spout), but it might also be due to the fact that one has a slightly different aspect (direction) than the other, or that one of them had a slightly different vacuum level than the other, or any number of things might have happened. That is why you need replication.....to get an average measurement of the variable in question (sap yield), and more importantly, to get an estimate of variation that will allow you to do a statistical evaluation of the differences.

[mountainvan]

seems the unbrushed did better than brushed. missed that fact? not a big surprise from my chair. better check all the data before posting. do you get paid by UVM to post on the internet?

[Haynes Forest Products]

What the heck does it matter IF the good Dr did get paid to post on the net. I have learned more about the science of getting the most sap per tree for as long as possible and leaving a live tree when I'm done. Quit the petty crap and lets move to the black helicopters hovering over my sugar bush:rolleyes:

[3rdgen.maple]

Haynes I think the trader has turned over a different leaf. The petty bashing one. I personally welcome Dr. Tims input as well biased or unbiased I dont care. After all arent most of us trying to make a few bucks of maple syrup in one way or another? So you got helicopters running new mains at your sugarbush huh? Pretty sneeky.

[Thad Blaisdell]

Originally Posted by mountainvan View Post
I have nothing to do with the antimicrobial spile. I think it's a cool idea, and if it works great.

Posted months ago:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainvan View Post
Talked to a friend who has developed a new spile that may make the yearly adaptors obsolete, including the new leader adaptor. Look for the product to come out this summer from Maple Innovations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainvan View Post
Maple innovations is a New york maple producer teamed up with a nanotechnology company. The new spile has patents in the USA and Canada and approval from the fda and epa. You all know how I ream my holes out every year, with this spile I won't have to. Plus it should last for years not one season. I will say I'm biased because the producer who came up with the concept is my friend and I'd like to see him do well with it.

Just did a little digging and found these postings by mountainvan.

[Flat Lander Sugaring]

lets move to the black helicopters hovering over my sugar bush:rolleyes:

Ohhhh DON'T get me started on that Haynes:evil:
From nano particles being sprayed into the atmosphere of Barium and Aluminum to moon walk, JFK Assassination,

[maple flats]

I think we should get back to what really counts, sap production, and get away from this petty bickering. Mountainvan, You obviously are biased because a friend developed a product. That is OK, but do not shoot down Dr Tim who is doing the research and is doing REAL science. Even though he invented and patented the CV I believe his science is still vallid. Read what he has to say, he states that the CV guards against tap hole contamination from shutting down the vacuum, not that it helps in every aspect.
Also, as Thad stated, he runs his vacuum far higher and only shuts it down if everything is totally frozen. That will not let any contamination back into the tap hole. Mountainvan, I believe you have an agenda and want to help your friend, that is OK but to defend a product with no true scientific study is of no value. Your eagerness to help your buddy clouds your judgement.
This sight was never meant to host bickering, it is for the sharing of ideas for our mutual good, let's return to that aspect. This argument really turns me off to this forum.

[Kev]

LOL
Sorry maybe I shouldn't laugh. Yet, it is hard not to. The Doc shows all the data and how the data is collected in the study. up too and including the controls. they did side by side comparisons over several years.
Now I do not claim to be a scientist, yet I have read many studies by many people and groups on many dif. subjects. Rarely do I come across studies that are as unbiased as those I have read on the maple research site. Why do I say that? because often what a study does not check is more telling as to their bias as what they ARE checking.
The only way I can see that this study could be more exact is if you could somehow rewind a season, switch trees and systems and rerun the tests. we all know that without either Doctor Who's phonebooth or whosits flux capacitor drivin time machine (back in time )that is just not possible. So they did the best possible.
mountain on the other hand saw one years data compared in an inexact way without any historical data and thinks its diffinative. Thats not to say your buddys stuff doesn't work.... It just means it has not been proven by anyone at all to do what you and the manufacture claims it does.

[Beweller]

An interesting document floating around 50-60 years ago: "First Aid for Ailing Projects: or what to do until the statistician comes".

[brookledge]

I personally like to see a much research done as possible. I have been making syrup for nearly 40 yrs and have seen a lot of products developed through research. And along with the R&D comes profit in some cases so I for one am glad that profits can be made so it will help fund the next brain storm.
just the vast improvements to the tubing and plastics since I began using it in the 70's is unbelievable. All from R&D. As for being biased, naturally someone who develops a product is going to be bias and it is our job to listen and look at the evidence to then make a dertermination if the product is something we want to try.
Many producers couldn't imagine making syrup without an RO. Someone had to take the technology and build from it. and maybe in ten yrs the ROs will outperform todays machines.
Keep up the research
Keith

[Haynes Forest Products]

I just cant understand why some people have a hard time with a person making a profit. I don't care if the speaker of the house writes a book and makes 4 million on the deal. I don't care if someone takes the information they have gathered over many years in the maple industry and comes up with a product that will further our industry. The only way it can work is to make a profit. I would be willing to bet that all people involved in the Making...........JUST MAKING the CVs have well over $75,000.00 in mold making. Plus who knows how much in plastic research. I would also bet that it will be many moons before a profit is made. At some point the decision was made that check valves work. Stopping the suck back will prolong tap hole life during the season. With all that information someone still had to spend their money to bring it to YOU and ME in a usable form. Someone put their money on the line and as long as they did its not my business how they get it back. I hope they get rich off of the profits so they can sink the evil profits back into another product we can use to further our quest for greater profits.

THANKS DR PERKINS FOR ALL YOU DO AND SHARE WITH US.

[Maplewalnut]

First my disclaimer....I tried really hard to stay out of this one;). I completely agree with Haynes last post and have no issue with what some may see as marketing of the CV on this forum. Word of mouth is at some point the best advertisement out there. My suggestion to the antimicrobial spile owner is show us the data! Very easy to do whether its in this forum, doing the open house circuit, Bascoms fall seminar etc. Put the data in front of us, give us a reason to try the product and leave the decision to us. Coming on and bashing a contibuting member of this forum is certainly not going to have me running out to order microbials anytime soon.

[DrTimPerkins]

I hope they get rich off of the profits so they can sink the evil profits back into another product we can use to further our quest for greater profits.

Thanks for the nice comments that have been made. Below are a few comments of my own.

The CV adapter was developed after several years of study which determined what (one) problem was in limiting sap yields. It utilizes one approach towards correcting that problem. It is not a silver bullet that will cure all ills...but it can be helpful for many producers to achieve higher yields at a relatively low cost. The original design goal was to find a way to bring the sap yields of a vacuum tubing sytem back to near new levels at a reasonably low cost. The intent was to help maple producers produce higher profits from their operations. I think we've met that goal.

I will personally NOT be getting rich off the CV, or other inventions...some of which are patent-pending, some in the development/testing pipeline, some just in my head. The maple industry just isn't big enough for that for the most part. Although I can't divulge specific amounts (due to contractural issues), it comes to a relatively minor part of my total household income. I won't be retiring any time soon because of it that's for sure :) Taxes tend to eat up a good chunk of that (as it is considered "self-employed" income). I donate a good share of what is left to charities of my choosing, in addition to donating several hundred hours of my time to charities each year. I consider it a privilege to be fortunate enough to be able to help others. I tend to live pretty simply for the most part....my truck is 10 yrs old....no air conditioning, no power windows (power anything), standard, 4 cylinder.

Some people suggest I should forgo any of this income. If I did that it would go to UVM, not to PMRC. The only way to get it to PMRC is to take it as income and donate it myself.

The patents and other intellectual property (IP) from my work are owned by UVM as my employer, not by me. As part of the employment contract with any faculty member, I share in any income of licensed products based upon this IP according to a formula that is dictated by UVM. I didn't write this contract....it is a standard agreement for all faculty/officers of the institution. I have no say in the negotiations of the licensing contracts, who gets the license, or what they pay. Keep in mind that the licensing fee is just a small fraction of the total cost of this product. Most of the cost of any product is in its manufacture, marketing, and profit of the company that licenses the invention. The costs of getting a new product into production can be very high, and there are certain risks involved with any new product launch.

Once the IP is licensed, I can work with the manufacturer/distributors to develop the idea into a product, but what they ultimately decide to do is up to them. The licensing company pays all the expenses of developing and producing the actual product. I have no real say in the final product other than providing my opinion. I think at this point the opinion of paying customers probably carries more weight than mine.

In the case of the CV, Leader doesn't provide any income for continued testing or development of the idea. Any research I do is on my own with internal UVM funding. Leader has no idea what the results are beforehand or what I will say when I go and present at their seminars or at other venues. They don't "vett" any results or have any veto authority in what I say. I present the research results as I see them. Leader doesn't pay me for this (neither do other companies if I speak at their seminars). I've gone to maple producer meetings for years and talked about our research -- what I do now is no different than that.

Yes...of course I'm biased to some degree about this product. I invented it and I have been convinced by the preponderance of evidence over many years that it works. However....I also have done and continue to do a lot of work on other products. I try to do it in the most unbiased way possible, using adequate experimental design, with good controls and replication. If I am convinced a product provides the benefits it is marketed as giving to the producer, I will promote it, regardless of who makes it. I generally do NOT tend to say a lot about things we don't especially like. That gives the manufacturer/distributor a chance to improve the product.

I've always tried to be upfront that the CV adapter will work better in some applications than in others, depending upon a lot of factors. I've written and presented about the good (sap yield) and the bad (early breakage issues).

I'm grateful that Cornell University (an independant and unbiased third party) has consistently shown the same (or even BETTER) results than I have in testing of the CV spout adapter. I have no say in what Cornell tests, or in what they say in their results. We do share results AFTER the fact, like we do with other scientific studies. That way we are all clear on what has been done and where our results are similar and where they are different.

Like all things....consumers should always be skeptical of claims that are made without any evidence put forth. We regularly see things put out by companies with NO testing being offered (and certainly not any independant testing), yet with some rather interesting marketing claims. It is somewhat amusing to see that this gets accepted pretty quickly by a segment of maple producers. Yet for a product like the CV adapter that has had years of development and testing, we still get some strong resistance, although it seems to be from a relatively small (but vocal) group. Some of the things I've seen and heard are not just in the realm of healthy competition (which I have no problem with), but are instead outright deceitful and rather hurtful, and I've been rather unpleasantly surprised in some cases to find out where some if it has come from. In any case, it has been a real "learning experience" these past few years, and, like a lot of education, it has come at a price.

One thing is certain though. Look at the 2011 NASS maple production results. Syrup yield (gallons per tap) in some places is consistently going up, especially in VT and NY, but also in some other areas (just not as fast). Some of this increase (this year) is undoubtedly due to the great weather we had this season. I hope and believe that at least some of it is also due to technology and the research and Extension we've done here at UVM PMRC. That is our goal....to help maple producers increase their profits from their operations.

[tuckermtn]

I may have a foggy memory on this, but I think historically many of the land grant universities did research to promote increased yields for various agricultural products. The technology was then leased/licensed to commercial endeavors. And we all benefited from these advances. UMaine does forest technology research- then a start-up beings making laminated hardwood planks used for skidder bridges. Univ. of Iowa does corn planting research- then JDeere comes out with a new seed drill. So I see the UVM/PMRC/Leader relationship as being very much along those same tried and true terms...

Glad this thread has taken on a more civil tone...I had to keep checking my self from weighing in earlier with what would have been an ugly comment