Two big burly monster maples don't want to do their part - what to do?

[Galena]

Hey all

I have an extremely small sugarbush of approximately 9 sugar maples. One of them is untappable as it's basically just a thin straight stick with barely any foliage on it; I had several large rotting limbs taken off it a few years back.

So that should leave me 8 trees to tap, right? Well uhm no. I've only been able to get sap from 6 of the trees because the two biggest trees - I believe they're both 6 ft around - have some burls on them, and from what I understand, any tree with burls is basically untappable as the burls just sop up the sap.

I've tried to tap them anyway, using old spile holes from gawd knows how long ago as a hopeful indication that someone succeeded in the past. I tried tapping straight segments of trunk in the one tree that's less burly than the other. Still nothing but a few drops.

But those trees have huge branches and thick healthy crowns on them when they're in leaf. I'm considering trying to drill extra-deep holes this season (I start in March), if necessary ABOVE the burls...which will mean I'll need a ladder to collect the sap...unless anyone out there has some ideas.

I don't have photos of these two bruisers, but can easily get some in the morning.

Any suggestions? I want to give a couple of my faithful heavy producers from previous seasons this season off, and make those two lazy bastards earn their keep!

[happy thoughts]

well, if your only choice is to tap high on buckets, there's always tubing to make collection easier.

[Galena]

The thought has crossed my mind and may be my best option, other than moving a stepladder around trees 3 and 4 (the two selfish monsters in question). I'll look into it, at least I know supplies are readily available!

[gmcooper]

Not quite sure what you mean by "burly" but I think I know what you are refering to. First tapping in an old spile hole will not get you any sap on any tree. Find a clean location that is healthy and not near an old hole or damaged area. If the trees are as big as you say the bark might very well be quite thick. I have one old tree that it is at least 1 1/2 - 2" before I get to any white wood. Tap a little deeper 3"? One thing that brings up a question is you are seeing old tap holes from years ago? Has the tree healed these holes at all? or is there just a hole in the heavy outer bark? It is possible these trees have large sections of dead wood and still have the appearence of a healthy crown because of the size of them.
Not sure if I have been any help or not.
MArk

[Galena]

hey Mark

I'll take pics soon...I mean burly in the true sense of the word, in that both trees have burls on them, #3 more so than #4. But both trees also have straight trunks without burls on them, that's where I tried to tap last year without luck. The old spile holes have healed over, I'd have to check my records but I think 7 of the trees had pre-existing spile holes.

Re tapping old spile holes...I don't know...the locals from whom I learned sugaring simply redrill the spile holes from the previous years and get sap. Not saying I plan to do that, I do drill new holes each time, but many of the trees they tap are quite small (maybe 2ft around) and are definitely not girdled by spile holes.

Also have traced every major limb on those trees as I do with all of them, and they all culminate in big healthy crowns. #3 did lose a big limb a few years back in a windstorm but otherwise seems sound.

[Tweegs]

Interesting that you bring this up.

I have three monsters that fall in the same category, two huge road trees and one multi trunk behemoth out in the bush. I get very little sap from any of them and none have burls. I’ve tapped high and low in good wood to no avail. The one in the bush is in a flood area, the water is typically 4~6” deep around the base at tapping time, wondered if that had anything to do with it, but the road trees are high and dry…those I just don’t get. All are sugar maples, incidentally.

I’d also be interested in what others have to say about this.

[Galena]

You could be describing my two! Both are multitrunked and massive. They are on the same treeline as my superproducers, and my lot's only 1/2 acre in size. The area doesn't flood, they aren't exposed to any nasties - in fact my compost bin is between them so if anything I'd guess the soil around them would be a little richer! I have no idea why they would be so difficult to work.

[happy thoughts]

You could be describing my two! Both are multitrunked and massive. They are on the same treeline as my superproducers, and my lot's only 1/2 acre in size. The area doesn't flood, they aren't exposed to any nasties - in fact my compost bin is between them so if anything I'd guess the soil around them would be a little richer! I have no idea why they would be so difficult to work.

Outside of the fact that you have burly trees, generally a sign of disease or stress, neither of which make for a good tree to tap- just a thought but maybe it's the compost bin? Compost produces heat. How close is it to your trees' roots? Maybe the soil is too warm.

[Pibster]

Galena,
Is your signature listing maple syrup or sap collected? Those are incredible numbers if that's all syrup.

[Galena]

LOL no that's all sap, not syrup :-) Still pretty good #s considering how few trees and taps I have.

[DrTimPerkins]

Is it possible that the two largest trees are just still frozen? Small trees thaw quickly when it warms up a bit. Larger trees take a lot longer.

[Galena]

Hmm, I don't know...could be a factor. This evening I was going through my records and I have managed to get sap from both of those trees in past years. But I've had the compost heap there all this time, don't see why it would affect them now, it's been in the same location.

And as an aside...holy frig do I ever some trees capable of amazing yields. In 2011, aka year of the crazy huge crop when I pulled in 59 gallons, tree #2, my super-producer extraordinaire, produced 32 gallons of sap. That tree can be counted on when other trees quit on me.

Last year, for example, I did try to tap #3 and #4. I got just over 2 gallons of sap from #3 before it quit, and #4 gave me absolutely zilch. So trees #1 and #2, which were supposed to get the season off, ended up pinch-hitting and gave me a very respectable 3 gallons and 4 gallons apiece.

[Galena]

Is it possible that the two largest trees are just still frozen? Small trees thaw quickly when it warms up a bit. Larger trees take a lot longer.

Hmm you could be right, I did see that in '10 they did start a few days later than the other trees. Conversely, last year was stupidly warm and they were the trees I had to pull the spiles out of. #3 gave me some, #4 none. I do have pix of my trees to post, but computer is acting slow today and taking forever to upload images here.

Not sure if it would be a factor or not but tree #4 has a huge tree ear fungus on it, on a section I don't even bother trying to tap. Could that be indicative of a greater problem?

[farmall h]

Galena, I would suggest tapping higher this year, use a small step ladder and tap above the many years of holes. I know it may be a pain having to lift the bucket on a step ladder but at least you will hit a fresh spot. Good luck.

[Jmsmithy]

I'm interested in what you find Galena as I too have two monsters in one bush of about 40-50 trees and they give little to nothing each of last two seasons...:confused:

[Leadft]

My thoughts are that you have to look at the trees age....
If you get to the big monster tress they are old and slow just like we will be...
When you have a tree that is a 2-3 tapper then it's like someone in their teens or twenties that is in much better shape...

[HyeOnMaple]

These bruisers sound like candidates for the other side of the syrup pan. At what point do you trim dead wood and add to the fuel pile?

[syrup junkie]

I bet if you tapped above the trunk, on each fork (limb),you would see better results.Probably more sap wood up there, sometimes those old monsters have a very small ring of sap wood around the trunk, the rest is heartwood


Also, I have sawed a lot of maple over the years and run into bird's eye and bark pocket maple. what are the effects of these variations on sap quantities from those types of trees. anybody know?

[Galena]

Thanks Leadft, farmall and jmSmithy and all others. I've been looking through my records back to 2008 when I began tapping. I went around and measured all the trees at their widest point, and took note of any spile holes. Of #3 and #4, there was only 1 pre-existing spile hole, whereas their neighbours in that treeline (trees #1-#6) all had 2 or 3 pre-existing spile holes.

So I'm taking this to mean that someone bent the ear of the person who tapped before me and advised against tapping them. Which is probably wise. Meantime, in terms of size, they are respectively 123 and 129 in' apiece in diameter; this would be due to the burls IMHO. Again their neighbour trees are comparable in size. Superproducer #2 is 104', my next best tree #6 is only 96' around but kicks the *** of its immediate neighbour, #5, also 96' around. I believe all these trees are comparable in age, so I don't want those two to get off so easily on basis of age.

So here's what I plan to do. I'll get some tubing and tap well above the burls on those trees and have buckets hanging further down off of nails tapped in - I don't want to insert secondary spiles. Now I just have to wait til the best store around for sugaring supplies puts them out for sale!!

[wildlifewarrior]

They are ten feet in diameter? Holy cow!

Mike

[Galena]

They are ten feet in diameter? Holy cow!

Mike

Uhm they must be, I used a 5ft tapemeasure, sure didn't measure in centimetres!! :-) keep in mind that that's including the burled parts. I measured all trees at their widest part.

Will try tapping at the forks, I have a 6-ft ladder so that should be high enough to reach the forks. Above the burls everything looks fine. Will post pix later today.

ETA: in terms of adding them to the woodpile...I don't really want to take them down unless they're rotting out. They make up a significant part of the shared treeline with my neighbour.

[Galena]

OK for those of you who've been waiting with bated breath, pics of my trees are all up in the gallery under Galena's trees. Don't know if I need to parse any linkies or not. Anyway you can see the extent of my sugarbush and apart from my woodshed/kindling pile, any junk you see laying in the snow around my trees is my neighbour's!!!!

[ericjeeper]

Diameter of a tree is most generally taken at Chest height. DBH diameter breast height. Circumference is the distance around a tree. Diameter is basically across it.

[Galena]

Diameter of a tree is most generally taken at Chest height. DBH diameter breast height. Circumference is the distance around a tree. Diameter is basically across it.

Thanks Eric, I might re-measure my trees' circumferences once I feel like wading out to them I'll try for a DBH.

[Maplehobbyist]

Thanks Eric, I might re-measure my trees' circumferences once I feel like wading out to them I'll try for a DBH.

She's measuring circumference, not diameter. A tree that's 129" around has a diameter of 41", which is just less than 3.5'. (Not that that is a small tree, I sure wish I had some that large.) But that's a far cry from a 129" diameter monster.

It might be easier to use a rope to get around the tree and then use the tape to measure the rope. Just make a mark on the rope where is wraps around the tree to meet the end, then lay it straight and measure away.

[Michael Greer]

Might these two trees be red or silver maples?? I've sucessfully tapped all different types of maples, but last year, with our funny, short season, I got nothing from a couple of huge silvers, and only the shortest little run from some reds.

[Galena]

I doubt it...all my other trees are sugar maples, and the two bad boys' foliage etc matches all the others, indistinguishable from the others' bright yellow fall leaves. They're definitely not reds and I have yet to see silvers in the area.

Off to get my trusty rope and snow pants so I can get some proper measuring done...

...OK, all done stomping through 2" deep wet heavy snow, measuring rope in hand to get the DBH measurements.

Turns out that my original figures from '08 were pretty much bang on, with only 2-7 inches in variance. Except for #2, my superproducer, which I originally measured at 104' and is in fact 118'. Tree #3 was first measured at 123'; today I got 127'. Tree #4 didn't change from the original measurement of 129' though.

[Leadft]

So people have had better luck with tapping the monster trees higher (6'-8') ??

[Galena]

Well, I don't plan to go too high, just high enough to get past the burls and to where the straight trunks re-emerge. Tapping above the burls may work, I'll let you know in another month or so. Pix of my trees are posted in the gallery so you can see how high I'd have to go.

[happy thoughts]

...OK, all done stomping through 2" deep wet heavy snow, measuring rope in hand to get the DBH measurements.

Turns out that my original figures from '08 were pretty much bang on, with only 2-7 inches in variance. Except for #2, my superproducer, which I originally measured at 104' and is in fact 118'. Tree #3 was first measured at 123'; today I got 127'. Tree #4 didn't change from the original measurement of 129' though.

galena- I looked at your pics. Those are big trees but as someone else mentioned you must be measuring circumference not diameter. They don't appear to be more than 3-4 feet in diameter.

Circumference is the measure around the tree. This is what I and others think you're measuring. Diameter is it's width across (through) the tree, as in cross section. For an accurate measure the tree guys would use calipers, not a tape measure.

[Galena]

...It might be easier to use a rope to get around the tree and then use the tape to measure the rope. Just make a mark on the rope where is wraps around the tree to meet the end, then lay it straight and measure away.

Which is exactly what I did. I don't have tree calipers. I can go and give you a rough idea of diameter if you really want but is there not a formula for figuring out diameter once you know the circumference? I'm not a math person.

[ericjeeper]

pi 3.141 Circumference divided by 3.141 will give you the diameter.

[Maplehobbyist]

It might be easier to use a rope to get around the tree and then use the tape to measure the rope. Just make a mark on the rope where is wraps around the tree to meet the end, then lay it straight and measure away.


Which is exactly what I did.

Then you're measuring circumference and the diameter for #4 is 129"/3.14 = 41.08". 42" = 3.5'.


For an accurate measure the tree guys would use calipers, not a tape measure.

To measure the diameter. The easiest way for most of us civilians to calculate the diameter is to measure the circumference and divide by pi.

[Galena]

OK, thanks, I'm a bit math dyslexic. I knew Pi was something other than the name of book but otherwise not too much :-)