Does the loss of sap or damage from tapping impact long term health of trees more?

[Vermont Creation Hardwood]

With the advent of vacuum, the amount of sap removed from our maples has roughly doubled. The check valves may increase that even more. At the same time the size of damage from tapping has decreased with the use of smaller taps. The question I've not seen answered: does the large increase in the amount of sap removed per tap affect the long term health of maples negatively?

For the gravity system producer, can he double the number of taps per tree in order to approach the yield of vacuum systems? The damage per tap is reduced with modern smaller taps.

One worry I have is that the bias of the maple industry is for researchers to find that the greater sap yields don't harm the trees. I have not seen studies that address this issue, potentially one of the most important issues for the maple industry. Is there any truly independent research ongoing to address this?

[SWEETER CREATIONS]

I think maple producers have been using vacuum in Canada for over 25 years with little to no ill effects on their sugar bushes. We just started using check valves and vacuum last year, cant really comment on the long term effects yet ,but I was in the sugarbush in October and the trees had already healed up with the check valves where as the old 7/16 taps were far from healed up. Just my first year again with vacuum and check valves they seem to be what is needed, so we ordered 1000 for next year again. I too questioned the harmful effects and for me these are way less damaging to the trees and will again be using them in the future. Ive seen no harmful defoilation in the sugarbush as of yet.

[maplecrest]

after using vacuum for over thirty years, and seen the damage done to the trees i tap from 6 generations of tapping i will say that smaller spouts heal in a few months. trees give more sap than they need. mother nature plays a bigger roll in this. wind damage, lightning.drought ect. the big thing that had me thinking this tapping season was the lack of snow. and dust flowing up under my feet as i walked along tapping. but since then we have had rain and it is snowing now.but in dry years past the sap does not run long no matter how high the vacuum. the tree will give you what they can. over tapping will do more damage to a tree than any thing in my mind

[happy thoughts]

For the gravity system producer, can he double the number of taps per tree in order to approach the yield of vacuum systems? The damage per tap is reduced with modern smaller taps.

One worry I have is that the bias of the maple industry is for researchers to find that the greater sap yields don't harm the trees. I have not seen studies that address this issue, potentially one of the most important issues for the maple industry. Is there any truly independent research ongoing to address this?

Interesting questions. I would tend to think that the introduction of more foreign bodies like taps would be more damaging to the tree than sucking out more sap. So no, I don't think gravity tappers can add more taps past the current recommendations.

I've read that tapping removes less than 10% of a trees sugar stores and that's supposedly not enough to cause long term harm in a healthy tree under normal growing conditions. Also I would think that with spring a few weeks off, the tree will soon leaf out and will make more sugar in short time. It sounds like vacuum systems have been around long enough that adverse effects from it would have been long recognized. And since sugaring is big business, I would tend to think that even "dependent" researchers would keep tree health a priority. You kill the tree you kill the industry.

The use of smaller taps would also make me think they are less damaging so whatever damage loss of sap from tapping causes, if any, I'd think is easily overcome from less damage to the living parts of the tree which will be better able to produce more sugar... and so on and so on. But these are just my own uninformed thoughts:)

[DrTimPerkins]

The question I've not seen answered: does the large increase in the amount of sap removed per tap affect the long term health of maples negatively?

Vacuum yields in the range of 0.3-0.4 gal/tap have been achievable for at least the past 30 years with no apparent ill effects. High vacuum/good sanitation yields of 0.5-0.7+ gal/tap have been made in the past 10 years. Despite this, there don't seem to be any obvious ill effects from such sustained yields.


For the gravity system producer, can he double the number of taps per tree in order to approach the yield of vacuum systems? The damage per tap is reduced with modern smaller taps.

Not advisable. Doubling the number of taps, as well as the use of deeper, and sometimes larger (since some gravity producers still use 7/16" spouts) tapholes already creates a larger wound in the tree. Increasing the number of taps will increase the amount of non-functional wood in the tree, and is not recommended.


One worry I have is that the bias of the maple industry is for researchers to find that the greater sap yields don't harm the trees. I have not seen studies that address this issue, potentially one of the most important issues for the maple industry. Is there any truly independent research ongoing to address this?

Yes. At the UVM PMRC (I assume you would consider use independent....we definitely don't want to encourage maple producers to use practices that are not sustainable) we currently have three different (but related) ongoing studies examining the impact of carbohydrate removal on tree health and growth. There are other ancillary studies related to this work also being conducted. The overall goal is to examine current tapping guidelines in terms of BOTH tree wounding AND carbohydrate removal rates in order to develop new tapping guidelines based upon each of these two factors (current guidelines were developed with only wounding in mind). Unfortunately, as in many cases, it takes some time to do this work, and then to verify the results, before we can release the findings. So, while I can't yet speak of the results of these studies, perhaps an analogy will help.

You give blood. Your neighbor doesn't. Other than feeling good and helping others, there are really no advantages or disadvantages to giving blood compared to your neighbor. Even your Dr. would not be able to tell if you give blood or not (unless you tell them or they see the needle scars). Giving a pint has no real effect on you either way. Realistically, for most adults, giving a pint, or maybe even two pints at a time once each year wouldn't have any additional effect (unless you were really stressed by something else). Now say your 15 year old wants to give blood too. Probably wouldn't hurt them either - but maybe you'd have a little more concern. But how about your 10 yrs old....your 5 yr old? How about your 5 or 10 yr old that was sick or stressed by something else (like lack of proper diet, or for a tree, lack of sunlight because it's growing really slowly under the canopy of older, larger trees)? Probably not a good idea for youngsters in that condition to give blood (or in the case of a tree, to be tapped) until they're a little older, bigger, and have less stress.

Hopefully we can stop talking about people and blood about a year from now and actually discuss trees and sap.

[PerryW]

but If I have 100 kids, I figure it's okay to send a dozen or two of the younger kids to give a couple quarts of blood? The upside is, after a 5 year old gives a quart of blood, they ain't quite so rambunctious for a few days.

[Vermont Creation Hardwood]

I think Perry's analogy is more apt. After years of giving a pint every year, now we're taking two pints, with the latest technology getting closer to three pints. At what point is it too much? That these studies are ongoing now after 25 or more years of vacuum seems a little after the fact. The answer at the moment then is that we don't know? We don't know how much sap is too much for the trees?

Of course it's not how much is too much for normal years. In these parts a number of years ago we had a very nasty ice storm that stripped maples of most of their branches. I saw trunks that basically only had major branches and those were shortened dramatically. This was over a wide area. They came back, mostly. But if their reserves had been depleted by increasing sap extraction each year, at what point would they not?

On the other hand we thin the stands to give them optimum growth. Does our care balance the sap we take?

As far as the gravity question goes, 7/16 was the standard for many years. Why do you say that dropping to 5/16 does not allow more taps for the gravity producer? I understand that that tree wounding is the concern. Does that mean that the 7/16 taps were too much for all those years?

[northwoods_forestry]

For the gravity system producer, can he double the number of taps per tree in order to approach the yield of vacuum systems? The damage per tap is reduced with modern smaller taps.

Very interesting discussion. I considered going vacuum a couple years back when I was looking to increase production. I decided against it, but rather than doubling the # of taps/tree I have doubled the # of trees I tap. At the scale I'm working this seemed to make more economic sense and I had the trees to do it. Relying on gravity and the whims of nature, however, I don't get the more consistant volume that a vacuum system seems to produce.

[PerryW]

Very interesting discussion. I considered going vacuum a couple years back when I was looking to increase production. I decided against it, but rather than doubling the # of taps/tree I have doubled the # of trees I tap. At the scale I'm working this seemed to make more economic sense and I had the trees to do it. Relying on gravity and the whims of nature, however, I don't get the more consistant volume that a vacuum system seems to produce.

Well said! that's exactly my theory. I just grew my # of taps to fit the amount of wood I'm willing to put up annually for my 1-man show.


Also my trees are fairly spread out and trying to strive for 5 taps on a lateral (for vacuum) would make for an expensive tubing setup. And keeping it simple has it's advantages. No midnight bearing repairs.

[spud]

but If I have 100 kids, I figure it's okay to send a dozen or two of the younger kids to give a couple quarts of blood? The upside is, after a 5 year old gives a quart of blood, they ain't quite so rambunctious for a few days.

WOW.

I read this whole Thread and found it to be interesting at first. Vermont Creation Hardwood had some good questions and was looking for answers. I felt the Doc's explanation was real good and it made a whole lot of sense to me. The comments made after the Doc's explanation I think are foolish.

Spud

[happy thoughts]

aw come on spud:D Where's your sense of humor? I thought perry's answer was pretty funny and now at least we know it's safer to be one of his maples than one of his children:lol: Life is short. We should all make room for more laughter and sweetness:)

[northwoods_forestry]

The comments made after the Doc's explanation I think are foolish.

And I appreciate your wisdom as well Spud.

[DrTimPerkins]

I think Perry's analogy is more apt. After years of giving a pint every year, now we're taking two pints, with the latest technology getting closer to three pints. At what point is it too much? That these studies are ongoing now after 25 or more years of vacuum seems a little after the fact. The answer at the moment then is that we don't know? We don't know how much sap is too much for the trees?

More appropriately, we've never really known. Studies designed to directly answer that question are very challenging and necessarily long-term, however a number of studies that have looked at this question over the last 150 years somewhat indirectly have all pointed to the fact that sap extraction has minimal impact on trees. There is one thing for certain, we are not killing trees rapidly through such high extraction rates with vacuum, otherwise it would be apparent by now. So while your concern is valid, I don't believe that the sky (or trees) are falling. Again, we're not ready to talk about our work in great detail yet, so I won't delve further into the results than that.


As far as the gravity question goes, 7/16 was the standard for many years. Why do you say that dropping to 5/16 does not allow more taps for the gravity producer? I understand that that tree wounding is the concern. Does that mean that the 7/16 taps were too much for all those years?

Someone else made that statement I believe, but I'll give my opinion. The wound caused by tapping (not just the taphole) is certainly smaller with 5/16" spouts. Given that the sap yield is about the same (at least with vacuum), there is no point in adding additional taps, and that is not a recommended practice. If you did, you're negating the benefits of the 5/16" spout. Secondarily, with good vacuum, the tapping guidelines can be more conservative, since we're able to extract more sap from the tree by pulling the sap from a larger portion of the stem. Putting in a second taphole in a tree under vacuum will not double the amount of sap, whereas in gravity, it frequently will.

Long ago when people hung multiple buckets (4-6) on large trees using 7/16" spouts, they were probably extracting far higher levels of sugar from an individual tree than we are now, even using high vacuum. So I'm not sure I fully buy into the argument that we're extracting unprecented levels of sugar now compared to what we used to. One could argue that we're actually being easier on the tree, because we're extracting the same amount of sugar, but with far less wounding.

[Stamford sugarmaker]

Very interesting discussion.

Could we speak to the gravity system a bit? I'm still using 7/16" taps but am thinking of going to 5/16" next year. If I keep the same number of taps per tree will I get the same volume using the smaller taps? I only do about 70 taps- half buckets and half tubing.

thanks, Peter

[Vermont Creation Hardwood]

I'm sorry I didn't make this clearer. I'm not interested in a vacuum system. A fair number of small producers can't justify the price and complexity of vacuum. So we're using gravity. The question I asked was: if 7/16 taps over many years didn't hurt our maples, why would not a proportional amount more of 5/16 taps to not exceed the equivalent wounding of 7/16 taps help gravity producers out? Some of us do not have more trees at our disposal. The extra taps would bring us closer, but certainly not close to what vacuum produces.

The advantage of vacuum is obvious; the advantage of vacuum pulling more sap from more of the trees' column through a smaller hole is obvious. I'm not discussing vacuum. I'm asking about gravity systems and how we might increase our production without doing more damage than 7/16 spouts do and did.

I suppose I shouldn't have mixed a more theoretical question about how much sap removal is safe with a practical question of increasing the number of taps.

[mapleack]

While a 5/16 tap hole removes approximately half the wood volume per hole as a 7/16, I don't believe that the dead wood area in the trunk produced is half. I believe it's larger than half, but the hole heals quicker. Dr. Tim will have the answer to that. Personally I'd tap smaller trees with 5/16, but not put more taps in a tree than I would've with 7/16. Even before I switched to vacuum I had eliminated alot of two tap trees, tree health is much more important to me than sap volume.

[DrTimPerkins]

OK...now we can start with a well-framed question.....thank you for clarifying.

First off, we want the amount of wood we cause to be non-functional (for moving sap) by tapping each year to be compensated for by the amount of wood the tree can grow back in a single season in order for sap extraction to be sustainable. That is a key concept. Secondly, those old trees with 6-8 buckets on them wasn't good for the tree. The basal (stem) growth rate of trees that large simply isn't great enough (in many cases) to support this, and what happens is that you end up cluster tapping, or you end up tapping into brown wood due to heavily compartmentalized wood in the stem, which doesn't transmit sap (well).

Next concept, the 5/16" spout on gravity produces a wound that is up to about 20% smaller than in a 7/16" spout, and on gravity, and you get perhaps 80% of the sap volume (on one spout) you would with a 7/16" spout.

Last concept.....exudation of sap from maple trees under gravity act similarly to hollow pipes, or more appropriately, a pipe filled with straws filled with sponge-like material. The pipe is stuck upright in the ground and filled with water. If you put a hole in the pipe, you cut some of the straws (filled with sponge), and the water will drip out until the water pressure (or head, since flow is mostly due to gravity) inside the pipe is equal to that outside, at which point it'll stop. There is some amount of water transfer from straw to straw horizontally under gravity, but it is very little and very slow. Under gravity, the amount of sap you'll get is approximately proportional to the amount of straws (vessels) you sever.

So, all this put together means that if you put more X number of holes in the pipe (tree) under gravity, you'll tend to get somewhere near X times the amount of sap (minus a little perhaps). Not the same thing though under vacuum, especially high vacuum, because in that case you're pulling the sap horizontally a LOT more. Thus increasing the number of taps under gravity will increase the amount of sap linearly in proportion to the number of tapholes. But, if you use small spouts, you're getting about 80% of the amount of sap from a wound than you would from a 7/16" hole. So if you put in two 5/16" holes, you get 1.6X the amount of sap for 1.6X the amount of wounds.

1 5/16" spout = 0.8 sap for 0.8 wound (compared to a 7/16" spout)
2 5/16" spouts = 1.6 sap for 1.6 wound (" )
3 5/16" spouts = 2.4 sap for 2.4 wounds (" )
4 5/16" spouts = 3.2 sap for 3.2 wounds (" )
and so on....

So doubling the amount of 5/16" taps doesn't double the amount of wounds, but it is proportional to the amount of sap. So for a given volume of sap, you're not gaining anything in terms of tree health. In fact, if you double the number of holes from your 7/16" spouts, you'd increase the amount of wounding by about 60% (while gaining about the same increase in amount of sap).

Taphole closure though is much more rapid with small spouts, about 2X as fast.

[DrTimPerkins]

While a 5/16 tap hole removes approximately half the wood volume per hole as a 7/16, I don't believe that the dead wood area in the trunk produced is half.

Correct....the internal wound created by a 5/16" spout is about 80% the size of a 7/16" spout. http://www.uvm.edu/~pmrc/smallspout.pdf

[Snowy Pass Maple]

This is an interesting thread - I still think the original question is a bit open as to whether (2) 5/16" wounds are better than (1) 7/16" wound.

As you say, the purpose of a 5/16" seems to be to support a higher level of vacuum extraction and was never intended to be a replacement for 7/16" spouts. But analysis like you just showed will clearly suggest to any gravity producer that if they can get 1.6x the sap for equal wounding, then why not - and regardless of intent, it's a very valid question if we assume 7/16" tapping was also workable for a very long history. We are making the same assumptions now that vacuum seems to be doing no harm.

So far, I've just stopped using 7/16" and went to 5"16 for my gravity operation. But when I see people putting high vacuum on the trees and people generally accepting that vacuum is not bad, it tells us more sap extraction is not necessarily bad. And if more sap extraction is not a problem, and wounding is "equivalent" then it does really encourage using more 5/16" taps, or at least having a lower threshold in diameter to add a second 5/16" tap than you would for 7/16".

Maybe the part of this discussion worth exploring is whether (2) 5/16" wounds are equal, better, or worse than (1) 7/16" wound.

[happy thoughts]

This is an interesting thread - I still think the original question is a bit open as to whether (2) 5/16" wounds are better than (1) 7/16" wound.

And if more sap extraction is not a problem, and wounding is "equivalent" then it does really encourage using more 5/16" taps, or at least having a lower threshold in diameter to add a second 5/16" tap than you would for 7/16".

Maybe the part of this discussion worth exploring is whether (2) 5/16" wounds are equal, better, or worse than (1) 7/16" wound.

Yes, a very interesting discussion. If I'm following your line of thinking snowy, and changing your example a bit to something that might fit along the lines of how we might apply it, then it would seem there would be little gain in placing 4 smaller spouts vs 3 larger ones in terms of both wounding and sap production. Thus the tree saving function of smaller taps (post edit clarification- in this instance) would seem to be negated on gravity at least to my thinking.

[johnallin]

A little something for the "for what it's worth" department.

There's a Northeast Ohio member here with the following in his signature;
"Tapping the same trees my great, great and great grandfathers tapped".

So... If we allow 25 years per generation, that gives us 100 years; guessing this member is 30 something gives us 130 years of tapping these same trees. Estimating that these trees were close to 50 years old before they were tapped and we have a bush with 180+/- year old trees - still healthy and still producing. Assuming these older fellows were using 7/16" taps - and maybe even putting 3-4 per tree, we now have 180+/- year old healthy trees that have been tapped for 130 years using older technology.

With all of that said; in the past four weeks, this bush and this member, have produced 53 gallons of syrup to date, on 225 buckets and 50 gravity lines. He produced 127 gallons in 2010 and I can only guess he uses 5/16' spouts now. The numbers and the history are impressive and speak loudly for the sustainability of producing maple syrup and the tenacity of the sugar maple. These men have obviously taken care of their woods.

I am not supporting vacuum or gravity one way or the other - I just don't know enough yet - and I have a lot of respect for what the good Doctor has to say about his chosen field. As for the long term effects of tapping, whether we should be on gravity or on vacuum, and how many taps are acceptable I for one, respect his opinion.

[happy thoughts]

Hi John , I don't think there is a person here who that does not respect Dr Tim or appreciate his willingness to answer our questions. I am sure that he gets many of the same questions from his students. We are all learning and very fortunate to have Dr Perkins here from time to time as a very knowledgeable and most generous sounding board.

If no one has said it lately, Thank you Dr. Perkins:)

[DrTimPerkins]

Maybe the part of this discussion worth exploring is whether (2) 5/16" wounds are equal, better, or worse than (1) 7/16" wound.

Clearly worse. 1 7/16" spout = 1X wounding, 2 5/16" spouts = 1.6X wounding. Internal wounding is 60% higher with 2 small spouts than one large spout.

[Snowy Pass Maple]

Clearly worse. 1 7/16" spout = 1X wounding, 2 5/16" spouts = 1.6X wounding. Internal wounding is 60% higher with 2 small spouts than one large spout.

Hi Tim -

I'm curious to understand better why you say 60%. On simple cross-sectional area, if my math is right, I believe the two 5/16 spouts are equal to a single 7/16. While on simple diameter, you could say the two small spouts total diameter is 43% more. Is there another critical dimension that determines this or am I not thinking about this correctly? Beyond simple dimension, I also wonder is it better to have a larger hole that takes a longer time to close and has a larger volume impact to the tree in one place vs. two smaller holes that close up faster? Feel free to point me to any references of interest that already explain this stuff :-)

For now, I'm just playing it safe with single 5/16" all around - getting plenty of sap to keep me busy!

By the way, I also see birch producers talking about using 7/16" - but then resting the trees for two years. Any reason you're aware of why they should not just use 5/16" taps if there is already a perceived higher sensitivity to damage when tapping birch?

[happy thoughts]

snowy- go back and read the link Dr Tim left in post #18. I believe that will answer all your questions. The section that speaks to internal damage found on dissection explains it. The internal impact area where wounding occurs from a 5/16 tap is about 80% of that of a 7/16 tap. This goes beyond the simple cross sectional dimensions of the tap itself. Thus the 1.6 value given to wounding from 2 small taps is 60% greater than the wounding from one large tap (which would have a wound value of 1)

[DrTimPerkins]

I'm curious to understand better why you say 60%.

Happy answered this one (and you're welcome).


By the way, I also see birch producers talking about using 7/16" - but then resting the trees for two years. Any reason you're aware of why they should not just use 5/16" taps if there is already a perceived higher sensitivity to damage when tapping birch?

The exudation (flow) mechanism is very different in birches, and arises from root solute loading (with sugar) causing water to be drawn in from the soil, creating a high root pressure. We are not (yet) certain whether vacuum will augment sap yield from birch trees.....but we're working on it. In addition, the compartmentalization in birches is not as strong, so the wounds can be bigger. As they say....it's a different animal (or plant in this case).

[Snowy Pass Maple]

snowy- go back and read the link Dr Tim left in post #18. I believe that will answer all your questions. The section that speaks to internal damage found on dissection explains it. The internal impact area where wounding occurs from a 5/16 tap is about 80% of that of a 7/16 tap. This goes beyond the simple cross sectional dimensions of the tap itself. Thus the 1.6 value given to wounding from 2 small taps is 60% greater than the wounding from one large tap (which would have a wound value of 1)


snowy- go back and read the link Dr Tim left in post #18. I believe that will answer all your questions. The section that speaks to internal damage found on dissection explains it. The internal impact area where wounding occurs from a 5/16 tap is about 80% of that of a 7/16 tap. This goes beyond the simple cross sectional dimensions of the tap itself. Thus the 1.6 value given to wounding from 2 small taps is 60% greater than the wounding from one large tap (which would have a wound value of 1)

Oops - I missed that link - very nice paper! This stuff just gets me more and more interested in the hobby :-)

What caught my eye even more was the tapping depth analysis. That seems pretty compelling as well - first time I've seen it quantified like that.

[happy thoughts]

snowy- I read some other papers on tapping depth a few weeks ago. I believe they were older works out of UVM, though their authors escape me. They did some pretty interesting stuff including making large horizontal cuts through a tree to see how sap flow in the rest of the tree would be affected. No surprises there on depth, deeper holes mean more sap but a lot more internal wounding. And if you do some basal pruning on your maples, they're gonna die.

And on a somewhat related note, though the thought of certified organic maple syrup really annoys me because most syrup would qualify as "organic, I understand there are additional stipulations for certification re sustainability that I'd be interested in. Anyone know what those might be offhand? Do they address what size spile, how deep, and how many?

[Vermont Creation Hardwood]

I noticed something that was not correct for a gravity situation in Dr. Perkins posts above. The study conclusions on gravity were that the wound of a 5/16 spout was 59% of that of a 7/16 spout, not 80%. The 80% figure was for vacuum, not gravity. So the math above is 7/16 wounding = 1, 5/16 = 0.6, two 5/16 = 1.2, sap yield of 5/16 = 0.94 of that of 7/16 on gravity. So two 5/16 would yield 1.88 as much as one 7/16 for 1.2 wounding. That is a very different yield vs wounding calculation.

The discussion that a second tap yields only 50% more sap involved vacuum systems, not gravity. That makes sense, since vacuum pulls from more of the tree's sap column. Gravity, as explained in posts above, does not. So a second tap is more likely to yield twice as much.

I understand that Dr. Perkins' focus is on vacuum systems, so the figures for vacuum are in his head more than the figures for gravity. In this thread we are concentrating on gravity systems, which are a different animal from vacuum systems. I'm fascinated that the wounding is significantly different from gravity to vacuum, gravity wounding of the 5/16 tap being 60% and vacuum wounding being 80% of the 7/16 tap. So vacuum systems have a direct cost in tree wounding beyond any sap extraction cost.

[TimJ]

Maybe the part of this discussion worth exploring is whether (2) 5/16" wounds are equal, better, or worse than (1) 7/16" wound.

I think the paper addressed this for smaller trees somewhat - If I read it correctly then the view seems to be that for small diameter trees it is probably a bad thing. I won't speculate f beyond that.

We tend to err on the cautious side - and I might start drilling more shallow as well.

[DrTimPerkins]

I noticed something that was not correct for a gravity situation in Dr. Perkins posts above. The study conclusions on gravity were that the wound of a 5/16 spout was 59% of that of a 7/16 spout, not 80%. The 80% figure was for vacuum, not gravity.

It may appear that way, but in actuality, not. You are putting together two different things to come up with a wholly incorrect conclusion.

The 59% value was calculated from a fairly small sample size of individual trees. The problem is that individual trees vary tremendously in their wound response (much like people). If you read closely you will also see that there was some difficulty due to penetration of the taphole into the heartwood, making discerning staining caused by the spouts difficult. The second study, which done under vacuum, was designed very differently, with both a large and a small hole put IN THE SAME TREE to minimize between tree variation. When comparing within the same tree, the wound from a small spout is 80% the size of a wound from a large spout. The fact that the estimate is larger has NOTHING at all to do with vacuum, but is mainly due to an improved experimental design and measurement procedure. VACUUM DOES NOT CREATE BIGGER WOUNDS IN MAPLE TREES. http://www.uvm.edu/~pmrc/vacsap.pdf

So in essence, as I said in an earlier post, the wound from a small spout is 80% the size of large spout. Therefore my earlier conclusion stands. Further, vacuum systems do NOT create a larger wound in maple stems. This is absolutely a false conclusion drawn between two different studies done at different times under different conditions on different trees with different procedures.

I do not believe I said at any time that two 5/16" spouts will yield only 50% more sap than one. What I said is that one 5/16" spout = 80% that of a 7/16" spout under gravity. So two 5/16" spouts will yield twice the amount (under gravity) or (nearly) 1.6X the sap of one 7/16" spout.

Finally, yes....my focus these days is more on vacuum systems. The reason we primarily do vacuum research now is that the research on gravity systems was completed decades ago, and the conclusions from those studies is, in most cases, just as good as it was the day it was finished. There is no point in wasting valuable resources studying the same thing ad naseum. If you want the results from that research....it's all still there....you just need to spend the effort finding it. We look back through these records all the time. However when there are no historical research results on gravity systems, such as the work on small spouts, we will do it.

[johnallin]

You are a patient man Dr. Tim; and thanks again for all of your input.

[Snowy Pass Maple]

I sense that there may be some longer running tension or feud that I'm not familiar with here, based on the tone of some of these posts. I'll just preface this with I have no bias for vacuum or gravity and have no interest in trying to justify more taps - my interest was just better understanding the 5/16 vs. 7/16 wound impact since it's something I've wondered about myself.

I also went back and read the paper after the other comments and I don't see any clear statement that says the 59% datapoint is compromised in a way that makes it invalid. The paper says that some of the 2 1/2" deep tapholes in that study had a larger wound response - but doesn't state that this concern was biased to one particular spout type. In that case, it wouldn't be clear to me why the very clear statement "staining from gravity collection with small spouts was much less: only about 59% the volume of stains from large spouts" should be ignored. The 80% value changed the method of collection to vacuum, so then it leaves the reader to speculate on the reasons why the result was different between the two studies. The later conclusions never state whether 59% or 80% was a better number to work with - only that the wound with 5/16" is "smaller" and two studies were presented that both showed it was smaller, to different degrees.

I think in this thread, you're now stating more clearly that the 59% data should not be trusted as reliable - I just wouldn't be surprised if other readers may have also come to a similar understanding as the paper was written.


It may appear that way, but in actuality, not. You are putting together two different things to come up with a wholly incorrect conclusion.

The 59% value was calculated from a fairly small sample size of individual trees. The problem is that individual trees vary tremendously in their wound response (much like people). If you read closely you will also see that there was some difficulty due to penetration of the taphole into the heartwood, making discerning staining caused by the spouts difficult. The second study, which done under vacuum, was designed very differently, with both a large and a small hole put IN THE SAME TREE to minimize between tree variation. When comparing within the same tree, the wound from a small spout is 80% the size of a wound from a large spout. The fact that the estimate is larger has NOTHING at all to do with vacuum, but is mainly due to an improved experimental design and measurement procedure. VACUUM DOES NOT CREATE BIGGER WOUNDS IN MAPLE TREES. http://www.uvm.edu/~pmrc/vacsap.pdf

So in essence, as I said in an earlier post, the wound from a small spout is 80% the size of large spout. Therefore my earlier conclusion stands. Further, vacuum systems do NOT create a larger wound in maple stems. This is absolutely a false conclusion drawn between two different studies done at different times under different conditions on different trees with different procedures.

I do not believe I said at any time that two 5/16" spouts will yield only 50% more sap than one. What I said is that one 5/16" spout = 80% that of a 7/16" spout under gravity. So two 5/16" spouts will yield twice the amount (under gravity) or (nearly) 1.6X the sap of one 7/16" spout.

Finally, yes....my focus these days is more on vacuum systems. The reason we primarily do vacuum research now is that the research on gravity systems was completed decades ago, and the conclusions from those studies is, in most cases, just as good as it was the day it was finished. There is no point in wasting valuable resources studying the same thing ad naseum. If you want the results from that research....it's all still there....you just need to spend the effort finding it. We look back through these records all the time. However when there are no historical research results on gravity systems, such as the work on small spouts, we will do it.

[DonMcJr]

Very interesting. This is my 1st year making Maple Syrup so I am trying to learn as much as possible. I am considering putting around 13 taps on Vaccum in 2013 and then having another 25 on gravity due to the distance involved to reach the other 25 taps.

As far as the debate going on here about one 7/16 vs two 5/16... I see it the simple way. One hole is one hole and two holes are two holes... If I were to take blood out of my ARM with one big or two small IV's the only difference would be I have 2 spots where I could get an infection instead of one...to still get 2 pints of blood.

Since there's only a set time to draw SAP... Then that's where the gravity and more taps becomes an issue. But still you are making two holes vs one hole with is an extra place that has to heal and an extra place where damage and disease could occur.

I for one believe that what past research says is what I follow when I tap my trees. I don't want to takes chances and put in extra taps on any of my trees and maybe get 5 gallons more Syrup this year but then find out I killed my tree and lose 20 gallons a year for the rest of my life!


That's my opinion on all this. If I want more SAP than my trees can produce with the current taps per tree reccomendations then I'll be knocking on my neighbors doors with a bottle of liquid gold asking if I can tap their trees and I'll give them some free syrup in return!

[Vermont Creation Hardwood]

I'm glad that Dr. Perkins cleared up the difference in studies that compare tap holes in the same tree vs. tap holes in different trees. I'm also glad that Snowy Pass Maple posted his conclusion that reading the study on gravity taphole damage does not clearly present the limitation of its data. The 2007 study that Dr. Perkins linked above was on 30 trees divided into 6 groups of 5 each having no vacuum or different levels of vacuum. So this study involved tap hole damage on different trees for each level of vacuum and for no vacuum, all the same size spouts, not taphole damage with different sized spouts on the same tree.

The tension in this thread mentioned by Snowy is interesting. My tension comes from a frustration that there has been little attention paid in studies as to whether the constant increase in sap yields per tap over recent years affects the health of maple trees. The linked study highlighted that difference between a gravity tap producing 5 gallons per taphole and a vacuum tree producing 32.6 gallons per tap hole, over a six fold difference. The average sap yield was just over 6 gallons per tap for gravity and just under 22 gallons per tap for high vacuum. That's over a three fold difference.

The number of taps per tree I assume has remained fairly constant over the years. The taphole size has been reduced. So taphole damage has gone down. Sap extraction has gone consistently up, a threefold increase in recent history, with the new check valves adding another increase. It seems important that this threefold or more increase in sap extraction is significant enough to consider what negative effect it has on the health of our trees.

When I suggested an increase in the number of taps per tree in proportion to the lesser damage caused by smaller taps, the suggestion was met by universal disdain by most on this thread, including Dr. Perkins. Yet the increase in sap extraction has been met with universal excouragement, including Dr. Perkins, without benefit of any studies showing the effect to be minimal. Annecdotal evidence is well and good, but we won't notice health effects on maples as quickly or easily as it is to measure taphole damage.

Oh yes, I understand that I'm being a gadfly in my contribution to the thread tension. Just to be clear, I haven't increased the proportion of my tapholes. Playing with possibilities and asking questions are for the purpose of learning. Being a gadfly is also.

[markcasper]

Vermont creation hardwood...I would think after 30 years of using vacuum.....the results would be quite evident by now that vacuum is harmless. To me vacuum would be no different than if weather conditions were perfect for sap flow year after year on soley gravity. What I mean is: vacuum evens out the seasons where the weather can't. I mean if you had 20 perfect years in a row for sugaring, the right temps, adequte moisture, minimal frost, would the weather be blamed for making the trees run too much and fear of "taking too much sap"? Vacuum and checkvalves is much better and safer than formaldehyde tablets ever were. Vacuum this year meant the difference between tapping and not tapping, between having something to cook versus nothing to cook.
Even with good vacuum, it fell way short of a normal year with "natural" tapping. So was this year safe for vacuum?? and last year wasn't?

[PerryW]

Only time will tell whether the dramatic increases in gallons/taphole causes long term damage to the trees. While vacuum has been around for a while, high vacuum (25"+) and CV's seem to take us up to another level of sap production (at least according to the studies).

[MilesTeg]

If you guys read post #5 that the doctor put out you would realize there is a study going on about the effects of taking out more sap on the tree. The biggest problem is that he can't talk about it yet because the study isn't done or quantified yet. So if everyone calms down and learns some patience then may e we all will be smarter when the results are in.

[Vermont Creation Hardwood]

There is no way a gravity system can approach the potential vacuum has for sap production. 30 years ago the vacuum was half or less than the high vacuums of today. Vacuum systems have increased in vacuum and sap production over the years. As Perry mentioned, the check valves have increased what is sucked out of maples very recently There is no 30 year history of the level of sap production possible today.

Has anyone gone back and looked at the trees that have had vacuum for thirty years in a controlled and studious way? The answer, as Miles pointed out, is that there have been no studies done on the effects of vacuum extraction on the health of maple trees. Only currently is a study under way, as Dr. Perkins pointed out. I have to confess to surprise that it's taken this long to consider this very important and potentially damaging high level of sap extraction that has been reached today.

My bias is that I have a gravity system. Do I think it's better for my maple trees? Yes. The bias of the larger producers is toward vacuum and technologies that increase the sap production of their trees. The question for each person's bias is how much it influences your opinions. The question for researchers is how do they protect their research against the natural bias to find that vacuum systems don't harm maple trees. Bias is insidious and science, when done well, is the invention that can neutralize the influence of human bias.

[DrTimPerkins]

I am not able to respond in depth at this time, however long-term studies, including many sites on vacuum, have detected NO effects of sap removal on health and growth of trees.

Personally, the potential for damage can be and historically was higher for gravity. Maple producers used to (and some still do) put in way too many buckets per tree, which would not only extract a huge amount of sugar per tree, but also create multiple wounds. Typically these were in large, slow growing trees, which exacerbated the problem.

Finally, I am done with this thread. While I enjoy useful questions and debate, these continued questions have gone beyond any useful purpose.

[PerryW]

One thing for sure... Tapping does less damage than the only other thing I can do with my maple trees i,e, make lumber out of them.

[Vermont Creation Hardwood]

I'm surprised and disappointed with Dr. Perkins' response to my post. In post number 5 Dr. Perkins indicated that studies addressing my "not useful" questions were ongoing. I'm happy that research IS addressing such important questions.

Yet here he replies with a silly anecdote of gravity producers who put too many buckets on trees. Vacuum producers have never similarly overtapped??? Can we assume that those posting in this thread do so out of concern for the health of maple trees and aren't the ones overtapping?

I know where my bias lies. I hope Dr. Perkins understands where his does. What I expected was a little less negativity and a little more reason from a man of science.

[Greenwich Maple Man]

I have just finished reading this thread from the very first post until the last one. There is certainly alot of info. and thoughts given, some proven. However the one thing I would say is why would somebody who has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in a sugaring operation (including vacuum systems ) harm the most important piece of the whole puzzle, the tree? I do sugaring as my fulltime job and depend on the trees 100%. However I run 100% vacuum and believe there is nothing wrong with it nor is there anything to prove there is. I have yet to see a a dead sugarbush from vacuum , but have seen many from gravity. The reason being that (some) gravity producer want to get as much sap as he can and spend as little money as he can and as a result pounds the tree with to many taps. I've had a couple of landowners ask if the vacuum hurts the trees. My answer is always that I have thousands and thousands invested in a sugarbush for longterm use so would I do something to harm that investment ? No. Nor do I believe there are many producers gravity or vacuum that are, but that dosen't make one better of sugarmaker just because he uses gravity.

[Vermont Creation Hardwood]

You implied that gravity producers care less for their trees than vacuum users do. Your last sentence claims that gravity producers aren't better, yet by your implication that gravity producers have killed sugar bushes while vacuum producers have not, you imply vacuum producers are better.

I've never seen a dead sugar bush. You claim you have. I have seen dead and dying maple trees, mostly roadside trees. Roadside trees have many health impacts that woods trees don't. First, they are often the oldest trees and trees do have a natural life span. Roadside trees are likely to have been tapped for the longest time, and of course, that would mean gravity, generally buckets. Many vacuum producers will bucket tap their roadside trees for the appearance. Roadside trees contend with salt and polution. So of course they would be the first to die off.

Once you have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in a maple operation, do you think you want to hear of any negative effects from vacuum? Of course not. You are looking for positive encouragement that vacuum does not harm maples at all. This is a natural and powerful human desire, to have your beliefs reinforced by research. It is the reason researchers have to be careful to isolate these powerful, numerous and invested biases from influencing the research.

Negative effects are going to be subtle and not easy to tease out from short term studies. The level of sap extraction from maples today is much higher than just ten years ago. Since the extraction rate has increased over time, we can assume it will continue to increase with better technology. Is there no limit to the amount of sap that can be removed from a maple? I think the reasonable answer is that there is a limit somewhere. Are we close now, or so far away from that limit that increases won't get near it for a long time? I think most producers who have invested serious money in their equipment hope and pray that we aren't near the limit.

[Greenwich Maple Man]

You implied that gravity producers care less for their trees than vacuum users do. Your last sentence claims that gravity producers aren't better, yet by your implication that gravity producers have killed sugar bushes while vacuum producers have not, you imply vacuum producers are better.

I've never seen a dead sugar bush. You claim you have. I have seen dead and dying maple trees, mostly roadside trees. Roadside trees have many health impacts that woods trees don't. First, they are often the oldest trees and trees do have a natural life span. Roadside trees are likely to have been tapped for the longest time, and of course, that would mean gravity, generally buckets. Many vacuum producers will bucket tap their roadside trees for the appearance. Roadside trees contend with salt and polution. So of course they would be the first to die off.

Once you have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in a maple operation, do you think you want to hear of any negative effects from vacuum? Of course not. You are looking for positive encouragement that vacuum does not harm maples at all. This is a natural and powerful human desire, to have your beliefs reinforced by research. It is the reason researchers have to be careful to isolate these powerful, numerous and invested biases from influencing the research.

Negative effects are going to be subtle and not easy to tease out from short term studies. The level of sap extraction from maples today is much higher than just ten years ago. Since the extraction rate has increased over time, we can assume it will continue to increase with better technology. Is there no limit to the amount of sap that can be removed from a maple? I think the reasonable answer is that there is a limit somewhere. Are we close now, or so far away from that limit that increases won't get near it for a long time? I think most producers who have invested serious money in their equipment hope and pray that we aren't near the limit.

Like it or not I have seen more trees killed that were gravity tapped. None with vacuum. I'm not changing what I've seen nor did I say that gravity producers are killing all there trees. That would be a retarded statement. Since you feel that vacuum producers could be taking more sap than they should lets see the test results and proof on that statement. There is ample proof that vacuum is not harming the trees. To be quite honest what difference does it make to you. If you don't believe in vaccum then don't use it. But nobody should then say the producers using it could be harming there trees or could not. Bottom line is you really don't know one way or the other. However there is ample research and years of history saying VACUUM DOES NOT HARM THE TREES.

[markcasper]

Vermont creation hardwood...it appears that you are very loyal to believing in gravity production only. Mr. Perkins has stated that there are things that are not answered and cannot be answered at this time with the data known. 30 years of vacuum is a pretty good indiacator and convincer to skeptics in my opinion.

Compare this issue to say, genetically modified foods, GMO, where the long term effects in humans have not shown up much yet. When you top it off that the FDA, Monsanto, Syngenta, USDA all have a revolving door of corrupt people involved, along with bought off congress people, the evidence is quite compelling. It makes you really cringe that there has NEVER been ANY public independant safety tests done on GMO's. The reason? Biotech companies will not allow it and they tell the FDA who is boss, so the FDA just tells the biotech companies that they are in charge of safety tests. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house.

I was getting on a rant....but the point is, there are other things to be much more concerned about then the topic of this thread.

[TimJ]

Mr Vermont Hardwood -

From what I can get out of your repeated posts is that you are concerned with HOW MUCH sap is taken out of a tree. Yet you continually use the phrase/word "vacuum" to mean "taking out lots of sap". I suggest you be more careful about the way you word your questions to remove ambiguity. However if you really are concerned about vacuum after the current research then there is no point in continuing the discussion... I can understand why Dr. Perkins posted in that manner.

So far the studies show NO HARM from vacuum as the method of extraction - i.e. cellular breakdown.

You also made statements/questions about using more taps on gravity to match the production from vacuum - which is CLEARLY a bad thing. And this was clear from the studies linked. Asking a question like that did not bode well for the rest of the conversation.

No one knows yet where the cutoff is for the volume of sap per tree for it to have adverse effects. Dr Perkins did say (although this should be ridiculously obvious) that this is dependent on the size of the tree, the tree's health, stress level, etc.

I would have to say that your pretty clear accusation of biased research also probably had a lot to do with the tone of the thread and the responses you got.

I am sure the sugar makers who actually make money from this endeavor are at least as eager to find out the threshold of sap extraction as you are. And, just as they burn hot fires and send lots of heat up the stack, where you choose to simmer all day on your evaporator, they have different ways of handling other parts of their operation.

[Vermont Creation Hardwood]

Probably the main reason you've seen more trees "killed" by gravity is because gravity has been around a lot longer than vacuum, a lot, lot longer. Longer than the natural life span of some trees. So some of those "killed" trees may have died rather than been killed. Also roadside trees also have other stressors than tapping, as I mentioned. Sure there are idiots overdoing gravity tapping, just as there are idiots overdoing vacuum tapping.

An important point is that your bias is for vacuum, mine is for gravity. I explicity state my bias. Do you?

[Vermont Creation Hardwood]

My concern with vacuum isn't cellular breakdown. The research has demonstrated that is not a concern. As I've clearly stated my concern is with carbohydrate removal, how much is too much?

30 years of vacuum are 30 years of very different vacuum levels. Vacuum levels today far exceed that of 30 years ago. Proficiency with vacuum has increased over the years as has the amount of sap extracted per taphole and per tree. So research on vacuum of 30 years ago, 20 years ago, or 10 years ago doesn't address today's vacuum. The question is what level of sap extraction is too much? Technological improvements will continue extracting more sap from trees until....?

I NEVER accused research of being biased. To discuss bias is essential in science. Science is the invention capable of neutralizing human bias. Researchers discuss bias and how to reduce it all the time. I discuss my bias explicitly precisely because I'm aware of it. Are you aware of yours?

You seem to confound statements and questions. I asked a question about increasing the number of 5/16 taps to equal the damage done by 7/16 taps. One of the reasons was to get a sense of whether 7/16 taps do too much damage. The initial question of this thread was which is more damaging to maple trees, tapholes or the removal of sap from trees. Most, including Dr. Perkins, seem to feel that tapholes create the most damage. But it was never answered whether 7/16 taps, used for many years and still being used, create unacceptable damage.

The responses to my question whether you could increase the number of 5/16 taps were knee jerk, "how could I even think of such a thing?" type responses. The purpose of asking questions is to understand better. The problem with knee jerk answers is they don't answer the question. Another question not answered is how much sap extraction is too much? It hasn't been answered because the research is only now ongoing. Yet increases in sap extraction continue.

[Greenwich Maple Man]

Probably the main reason you've seen more trees "killed" by gravity is because gravity has been around a lot longer than vacuum, a lot, lot longer. Longer than the natural life span of some trees. So some of those "killed" trees may have died rather than been killed. Also roadside trees also have other stressors than tapping, as I mentioned. Sure there are idiots overdoing gravity tapping, just as there are idiots overdoing vacuum tapping.

An important point is that your bias is for vacuum, mine is for gravity. I explicity state my bias. Do you?


Do be quite frank I don't really care what your "bias" is. It makes no difference to me how you tap or why. You are sitting there stating your own beliefe with zero proof or scientific backup. Plus there are producers that have pulled 25 inches on there pumps for more than twenty years and there is no harm done to the trees. The facts are there that vacuum dosn't harm the trees. If you choose to argue that then you can do it with whoever wants to waist there time proving it to you. Myself I have far better things to do then proove what is already prooven by science. You have zero scientific backup, and no facts to back what you are saying just your opinion. When the facts were given to you by a man who knows more about it then you, you then insulted the man and said he was bias. I'm going out to turn on my pumps and crank the vacuum and make as much out of this season as the trees will happily yield.

[lpakiz]

Well said, GMM.

[TimJ]

I NEVER accused research of being biased.

I cannot see how anyone reading your statements could take them to mean anything other than that. Perhaps I am misreading them.


To discuss bias is essential in science. Science is the invention capable of neutralizing human bias. Researchers discuss bias and how to reduce it all the time. I discuss my bias explicitly precisely because I'm aware of it. Are you aware of yours?

I have no bias; I don't care what yours are. I am also sure that I don't wish to be lectured about bias and "science" by someone who claims that keeping stack temperatures higher than the boiling point of syrup is a waste of heat and wood and is inefficient.

If you want to be a contrarian, that is fine with me, but don't be surprised when your views and purposely argumentative questions raise eyebrows. I suspect that this is not the first time in your life when you have experienced this type of reaction to your claims and questions.


You seem to confound statements and questions. I asked a question about increasing the number of 5/16 taps to equal the damage done by 7/16 taps. One of the reasons was to get a sense of whether 7/16 taps do too much damage. The initial question of this thread was which is more damaging to maple trees, tapholes or the removal of sap from trees. Most, including Dr. Perkins, seem to feel that tapholes create the most damage. But it was never answered whether 7/16 taps, used for many years and still being used, create unacceptable damage.
What I read was that you asked about doing something that specifically contradicted your stated and/or implied goals of caring for your trees and minimizing damage.

I am also done with this discussion as it has devolved into pedantry and semantic games.

I am off to look at catalogs for vacuum systems now.

[Brokermike]

It's going to cost you much less to add vac to an existing bush (assuming ti was run correctly to begin with), than it will to spend $3 per tap to add a tap and lateral.

[GeneralStark]

Probably the main reason you've seen more trees "killed" by gravity is because gravity has been around a lot longer than vacuum, a lot, lot longer. Longer than the natural life span of some trees. So some of those "killed" trees may have died rather than been killed. Also roadside trees also have other stressors than tapping, as I mentioned. Sure there are idiots overdoing gravity tapping, just as there are idiots overdoing vacuum tapping.

An important point is that your bias is for vacuum, mine is for gravity. I explicity state my bias. Do you?

It sounds to me like you have your opinion and are just here to troll. What exactly are you trying to learn here with this thread?

It sounds like you don't like vacuum because you think, despite years of research and field testing, that vacuum tubing does more damage to trees that gravity tubing by removing more sugar from the tree in the long term. That may be true but testing that hypothesis would be extremely difficult because you could never isolate the one variable of sugar removal in the long term. There are too many other factors that affect tree health.

Discussing science is one thing but it seems to me that you just want to stir the pot.

[Vermont Creation Hardwood]

As to the science, Dr. Perkins stated that research is ongoing as to carbohydrate removal from maple trees, the effects of sap extraction. That means the science is not in yet.

GeneralStark, the science is not in yet. One of the things I was trying to learn in this thread is tied up in research currently and not yet reported. I'm also learning that other maple produces like to voice their opinions often in emotional put downs of those who disagree with them.

TimJ of course you have bias. You just don't like discussing it. One thing you do is falsely represent what I have posted. These are your words, not mine: "claims that keeping stack temperatures higher than the boiling point of syrup is a waste of heat and wood and is inefficient." I commented that stack temperatures of 1,200 to 1,400 were a waste of wood.

Greenwich Man, as above the science is not in. You care enough about my posts to tell me I have zero proof and no scientific backup. You seem a bit hot under the collar.

A man I respect once told me that you cannot insult another person. A person can take insult from what you say, but usually it means there was truth in what was said and the truth hurts. A lie insults the person telling it.

[GeneralStark]

As to the science, Dr. Perkins stated that research is ongoing as to carbohydrate removal from maple trees, the effects of sap extraction. That means the science is not in yet.

GeneralStark, the science is not in yet. One of the things I was trying to learn in this thread is tied up in research currently and not yet reported. I'm also learning that other maple produces like to voice their opinions often in emotional put downs of those who disagree with them.

TimJ of course you have bias. You just don't like discussing it. One thing you do is falsely represent what I have posted. These are your words, not mine: "claims that keeping stack temperatures higher than the boiling point of syrup is a waste of heat and wood and is inefficient." I commented that stack temperatures of 1,200 to 1,400 were a waste of wood.

Greenwich Man, as above the science is not in. You care enough about my posts to tell me I have zero proof and no scientific backup. You seem a bit hot under the collar.

A man I respect once told me that you cannot insult another person. A person can take insult from what you say, but usually it means there was truth in what was said and the truth hurts. A lie insults the person telling it.

The pot stirring continues. The science may not be in yet in regards to increased sugar loss from vacuum extraction, but you don't have to be too smart to recognize that vacuum has been used for many years without noticeable adverse long term health effects. This issue has been studied and will continue to be studied, but if that were all you were after this thread would be done. I guess we will just have to wait for the studies to be published.

Perhaps you feel insulted, but a wise person once told me that blowing other's candles out to make yours glow brighter is only a sign of insecurity. Perhaps you are just envious of all those here getting more sap than you on vacuum.

[PerryW]

I think we will have to wait and see. I intend to join the vacuum club within the next year or two. I know if I do switch to vacuum, I will definitely get rid of all my remaining 7/16" taps and probably reduce tap count be getting rid of some of the double-tapped trees. I think most sugar makers are keeping a close eye on their bushes as far as disease and die-back goes. If I start losing more trees than I'm gaining, I will definitely reduce tap count, of give the trees a year off. I also intend to do more thinning and give the maples a little more sun and breathing room to compensate for additional sap removed.

I also suspect more data will be coming in over the next few years on the long term effects of the new technology. If the research shows that 1 GPT is not sustainable, sugarmakers will adapt.

As I mentioned before, my only other option besides tapping them is logging them.

[johnallin]

An important point is that your bias is for vacuum, mine is for gravity. I explicity state my bias. Do you?

Dear Mr. Vermont Hardwood - who cares?
As a hobby producer of maple syrup, I have been a member of Maple Trader since 2008 and the other site since January of this year. I visit these sites to learn from the posts of others - and when I can - offer up what I have learned to help others.

That said; I have been reading this post off and on and in the six short weeks that you've been a member here, it seems to me that you get some crazy pleasure out of just plain trying to piss people off. At times, your style of writing comes off as arrogant and abrasive with a bent for trying to impress with goofy twists and turns of the English language. No one here needs to state their bias or anything else for that matter..

I don't think the Trader has ever been a place where one's intelligence is to challenged; there are other places for that - this is not one of them. Dr. Tim Perkins has bowed out, I think because he has better things to do with his time.

As you are one of the newer folks on this site, it would seem polite to listen to and be thankful for any answers to questions you pose. Instead, you remind me of a past member named Frank Ivy - please note the word "past". Let's keep it fun and friendly and keep it on Maple.

[TimJ]

TimJ of course you have bias. You just don't like discussing it. One thing you do is falsely represent what I have posted. These are your words, not mine: "claims that keeping stack temperatures higher than the boiling point of syrup is a waste of heat and wood and is inefficient." I commented that stack temperatures of 1,200 to 1,400 were a waste of wood.


I do not have a bias, and you're right, I'm done discussing anything with you. I did not falsely represent anything - here are YOUR quotes:



Anything over the boiling temp of sap is waste heat.

I generally boil much slower than your video, Perry.

I can't see that a high stack temperature is a good thing. It is a simple waste of heat.

(ed. along with other various discussions about how you stoke/fire every hour or whenever you remember or after a nap, etc)



It is clear from your posts and practices that you are contrarian and it is of no use for me to continue any discussion on any topic since you prefer to screw around with semantics and ignore the subject matter and purposely choose to do things differently than others.


A man I respect once told me that you cannot insult another person. A person can take insult from what you say, but usually it means there was truth in what was said and the truth hurts. A lie insults the person telling it.

Keep using that as an excuse to insult people if that works for you.

I NEVER thought I would have to do this on maple trader, but you're now on my ignore list.

[Vermont Creation Hardwood]

In this thread I've questioned whether vacuum is healthy for maple trees. As if I'm a child I've been told in negative and nasty language that it's settled, vacuum doesn't harm trees. Yet Dr. Perkins posted that no studies have been done in the past on the effects of carbohydrate removal (sap) from maple trees. There are studies currently ongoing. Since it's vacuum that removes the most sap from trees, I don't understand why posters here get so angry when I point out that the science is not in yet.

I responded to a post about stack temperatures of 1200-1400 degrees by giving an opinion that it was a waste of heat. I've received a nasty and personal post about how could I call it waste? My style of operating an evaporator has bothered this poster. I find it puzzling that someone can take such offense to this.

I've been told I'm just a new member. It seems I'm supposed to listen and never challenge. Is this kindergarten? What is so frightening about differences of opinion?

Why all the nasty posts directed at me for having a different opinion about such things as vacuum and waste heat? Feel free to disagree with me, give me your reasons. I give my reasons for my opinions and I answer objections to my reasoning to the best of my ability. Yet most of the objections have been I shouldn't post, who do I think I am?, I'm a contrarian. Discussion is about real reasons and reasoning, not emotional attacks.

It appears to be a concerted attempt to pressure me to not challenge accepted opinions. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong and there is nothing for anyone to worry about. Nasty and negative posts are about not being sure of those opinions. Posts start out with I don't care what you say, yet proceed to tell me how I'm arrogant, abrasive, and impolite while they are being exactly that as well as nasty personal in their own posts.

I'm amazed by the level of fear and anger expressed here. Sad, so sad.

[markcasper]

In all due respect, I think you just pushed everyones buttons a little hard. I am basically on the sidelines. I have some vacuum, some gravity, and some bags. Each has its pros and cons. I am not going to give up on vacuum because you don't think its right. I also am not going to give up on vacuum because the verdict is not in.

I agree, and it has been stated that results of carb. removal will take awhile. I am not convinced that it is harming the trees. On the contrary, there are many other things that concern me about losing the trees, and land for that matter, that are far and above running vacuum. I will list a few.

1.) Frac sand mine companies gobbling up land/trees in western Wisconsin

2.) Asian long-horn beetle

3.) Family matters

4.) Extreme competition from other producers.

I am surprised that no one, or even yourself has not mentioned any items such as the above as equally alarming things that could, and some will, lead to the loss of trees.

[Scribner's Mountain Maple]

I would guess the work we all do to enhance the growth of our maples off sets any sap we extract from them. (liming, thinning, etc.) Leave a sugarbush along, you get tall skinny trees with a low sugar content cause they are sharing with many. Go into an established sugar bush where thinning has already happened. You find hardy beasts with big crowns. Now add lime and other soil sweeteners and you get an overall stronger tree. I am not arguing that the act of extracting sap strengthens the tree, rather I believe the farming of maple syrup certainly enhances the tree if the producer cares for it.

[Vermont Creation Hardwood]

I agree with you that our care for our maple trees offsets harvesting the sap. I bought a piece of property that was not cared for well and have slowly nursed its woods back to health. It's a long term project. Maples are less than half of my stand and much was very crowded, so I entered a rotation of thinning. But I do not thin to a monoculture because I think monocultures introduce their own problems. Next door to me a rich landowner bought a sizable tract and brought in amazing machines that harvest whole trees, delimb them, and chip the limbs. In a couple weeks a thriving culture of mostly hardwoods and some softwoods was reduced to all maples. Monocultures invite insect attacks.

Yes I am concerned about all the threats to maples listed. The huge difference is that I do not control any of them. I do control whether I thin to monoculture and how much sap I extract from my maples. So I would like as much information as possible on the effects that sap extraction has on maples.

Sap extraction does not work alone. Each threat to the health of maples, such as insect pests, human pests, pollution, salt, and climate change, acts in synergy to any health reduction from removing sap. Even if the health effect of sap removal is minor, when other threats happen, they add up. One year we in northern Vermont and southern Quebec had the worst ice storm in memory. Maples were stripped to their trunks and major branches. The healthy ones came back, the less healthy succumbed. There were years those trees weren't tapped. How many years of not tapping was prudent? The large producers who make their living off maple syrup had a powerful incentive to tap those trees sooner rather than later.

Am I pushing buttons too hard? I asked a basic and obvious question. The button I see being pushed is the DON'T ASK THAT QUESTION button.

[Dan]

Yawn----getting sleepy--------------------very sleepy.

[wilfredjr]

A prophet not is without honor somewhere, but just where exactly are we, anyway? Looks a bit like church to me, and not to be mistaken for a debating society. A great many things to be learned in church, but a certain tact is obligatory to remain in grace. You were doing great till you pissed off the pope, and the General rallied the faithful. A flaming death; order out of chaos; you know the story. As for the congregation, take it easy, their hearts are in the right place, recalling the collective wisdom of the village. But note the snooze button @ the word monoculture, and watch out for that soap box:0
Thanks for the provocation, though. Learned something.
the lake of fire beckons,
wilfred

[Brokermike]

You think he irritates people here, you ought to see the BS posted on Craigslist where he's selling his syrup and promptly trashing producers that use vacuum, ROs, and oil fired evaporators.

We should all be thinking like a team to encourage the expansion of the Maple Industry, cutting down producers who are more efficient is a lousy way to do business

[sirsapsalot]

This ad ? http://burlington.craigslist.org/hsh/2883803589.html

[Vermont Creation Hardwood]

There is a difference between discussion and trashing. This thread tried to be a discussion, but a number of posters insisted on talking trash. Accusers accuse by trashing.

Is anyone really afraid the marketing of a small, inefficent maple syrup producer threatens large, efficient producers? Do you think a guy who sells ten gallons a year is a threat to producers of one thousand gallons??? What are you so afraid of?

Comparing maple to the church is very interesting. Never thought of it that way. I was raised Protestant, so not steeped in bowing to a pope. Is that my mistake?

[wdchuck]

....and speaking of trashing.....if thats your ad, then you are inferring that oil, vacuum, and ROs produce an inferior quality product. Thats a pile and you know it. Market your own product in a positive light instead of trashing the rest of us!

[Vermont Creation Hardwood]

Here's the quote: "I feel some of the taste can be lost through all this mechanization." That's what I feel. It's not an inference, it's what I truly feel. It's also what I taste. I feel my syrup tastes better than 99% of the syrup out there. I've tasted a LOT of syrup.

Back to the bias...of course I'm biased. Don't you think your syrup tastes best too?

Another quote: "You can't get a wood fired taste from an oil fired evaporator." You can't, plain and simple.

I don't use vacuum or an RO or an oil fired evaporator. There are a small number of people to whom that is important. To not market to those people would be foolish. I can't compete with mechanized producers on price, my setup is less efficient. It's more old fashioned. I spend more time for less product. To some customers that's an advantage.

If you do use vacuum and an RO market it! For instance it is more efficient, the RO helps you use less energy, and the vacuum lets you collect more sap with less taps and thus your price can be lower. I use what marketing I can...why don't you use what marketing you can.

If your marketing inferred that the old fashioned way I use was more time consuming, less efficient, and does not take advantage of the modern advances in sugaring, do you think I would be upset? You'd be doing my marketing for me. If you claim your syrup tastes better than mine, that's what I would expect.

If you want to challenge me to a taste test, I'd love that.

[PerryW]

....and speaking of trashing.....if thats your ad, then you are inferring that oil, vacuum, and ROs produce an inferior quality product. Thats a pile and you know it. Market your own product in a positive light instead of trashing the rest of us!

At the risk of starting another battle...... I have heard the RO can give you lighter grade syrup but with a stronger than normal flavor. One of the large producers in my area used to say this before he got his RO.

Again. I did not read the whole thread, but we has sugarmakers have to be prepared to answer one of the most common consumer questions, "Does vacuum hurt the trees?"

It's very hard to argue logically that extracting a significantly higher volume of sap does not (at least slightly) hurt the tree. My answer to this, when asked, is the the vacuum producers use smaller taps, use less taps and manage their sugarbush to compensate.

I plan on doing all of this when I add vacuum probably next season.

[spud]

This is such a stupid thread I can't believe it's still going. Heres my take on the whole thing. I don't think vacuum hurts a tree at all but if it does I really don't care. I run 28 lbs in the woods and will keep doing this until all the trees are dead. I only have about 20 more years of sugaring before I will be to old to do it anymore. All I want is for my trees to give me 20 more years and I will be a happy camper. There is no difference in taste between oil fired and wood fired syrup. I have taking the test and could not tell them apart. I have also tasted RO syrup at 20% and 2% and I cannot tell them apart. I buy eggs from caged birds and they taste as good as the cage less chicken eggs. I don't care if they put 50 birds in a small cage just give me my omelet please. I injected Posi-Lack in dairy cows for years and there is no difference in the milk flavor. Just give me my milk shake please. I think to many people make a big deal out of the non important things in life. Don't even get me going on the organic nonsense. What a money making scam that is.

Spud

[sirsapsalot]

This site is going to change names soon..... THE NEW MAPLE BASHER ......wow tough crowd around here. Kinda depressing what has happened to this place, unless your a BASHER.

[wilfredjr]

I take it back. Everyone's heart isn't in the right place. I must take what comfort I can from the doctrine of Limbo.

[jmayerl]

This is such a stupid thread I can't believe it's still going. Heres my take on the whole thing. I don't think vacuum hurts a tree at all but if it does I really don't care. I run 28 lbs in the woods and will keep doing this until all the trees are dead. I only have about 20 more years of sugaring before I will be to old to do it anymore. All I want is for my trees to give me 20 more years and I will be a happy camper. There is no difference in taste between oil fired and wood fired syrup. I have taking the test and could not tell them apart. I have also tasted RO syrup at 20% and 2% and I cannot tell them apart. I buy eggs from caged birds and they taste as good as the cage less chicken eggs. I don't care if they put 50 birds in a small cage just give me my omelet please. I injected Posi-Lack in dairy cows for years and there is no difference in the milk flavor. Just give me my milk shake please. I think to many people make a big deal out of the non important things in life. Don't even get me going on the organic nonsense. What a money making scam that is.

Spud

I find I couldn't agree with you more!

[RustyBuckets]

Yeah so lets revive it then.:confused: