Marketing Syrup as Reverse Osmosis or Pipeline Free [Archive]

GeneralStark

03-13-2013, 09:56 AM

Dill

03-13-2013, 10:06 AM

I was reading this article yesterday
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/wall-street-100-million-man-makes-vermont-downton-abbey.html

And he is advertising his syrup as
Vermont's old-fashioned heritage can sometimes be new-fangled good, as in the effort of Newhall Farm to preserve the overall health of our sugar maples. For this reason we prefer not to use vacuum pumps to extract the liquid that essentially carries food to all parts of the (scientifically known Acer saccharum) tree. Instead we encourage the slow drip of this high sugar concentrated sap, and it's natural, gravitational, free-run flow to produce MAPLE SYRUP that has a taste of place of the Alps at Newhall Farm.

Also has a bit about "woodfired".

My problem with marketing like this is the same problem I have with the organic people touting "formaldehyde free". Don't hit other farmers by undercutting their technique or making up issues that don't exist. If you want to market how good your product is, great. But don't do it by saying buy from me cause I'm much better than Joe down the street. Say if you like my product better than buy here.

jmayerl

03-13-2013, 10:10 AM

Lol, I can't wait to get my new labels made.....produced by getting my atv buried for 3 hours. Or produced with blue bags only. Which sounds better?

GeneralStark

03-13-2013, 10:19 AM

Jeff E

03-13-2013, 10:58 AM

I have had people stop by, see my tubing, get a tour and see the RO, then see my wood pile and smile, and ask 'you make syrup with wood fire?', and yes I do, then they buy syrup.
Others love the concept if the energy effeciency of the RO. Bottom line, people have preferences. You cant make everyone happy all the time.

Dill

03-13-2013, 11:09 AM

I see the issue as people are completely divorced from where their food comes from. Most have never been to a dairy farm or know how syrup is made. Which is why we all spend time explaining the process. So the problem with producers making issues, like the lack of formaldehyde when in fact none of us can use it. The buyer latches on to that as a fact and will tell others. In the long run it hurts the industry. It really does amaze me when people who have lived in New England for their entire lifetime still don't have a handle on how syrup is made.

Snowy Pass Maple

03-13-2013, 11:31 AM

Here's an even better one... according to Crown Maple, boiling sap is bad :lol: This is how you defend going to over 30 brix with RO.

Using reverse osmosis to remove most of the water is far superior because it protects the delicate sap from prolonged exposure to heat which causes burning and excess caramelization.

More seriously, it almost sounds like they just didn't like the taste of maple syrup and are going to extreme processing conditions with the goal of making an ultra light syrup that diminishes the traditional maple flavors. And then they are on a huge mission to "educate" upscale consumers on how it should taste - according to their 3-year old view of the maple world. I find it concerning given how much press they get with those messages... and I can understand why some people may market more traditional methods to defend against this kind of nonsense.

To that end, Turner embarked on “a 3-year odyssey trying to figure out how to make the best possible product.” Obsessed with eliminating impurities that can give syrup a bitter aftertaste, he researched production methods, consulted with experts at Cornell University’s Sugar Maple Program and “worked with all the equipment manufacturers to get the best and brightest ideas.”

And he invested massively in the world’s largest and most high-tech sugarhouse, a gleaming, state-of-the-art facility that includes filtration and ultraviolet sterilization equipment, and a one-of-a-kind, NASA-grade reverse osmosis machine that can remove up to 90 percent of the water from tree sap. (This reduces the need for boiling, which alters the sap’s natural essence, says Turner.)

Huh?!? :confused:

I'm wondering if they will eventually just vacuum distill it to get straight sugar water... someone should tell them that as early as 1935, it was known that you have to actually heat it to make the maple flavor :-)

super sappy

03-13-2013, 11:54 AM

New York Post article March 9 th " willing and maple "Page 29 - Crown Maple Owner Robb Turner says the ro reduces the need for boiling which alters the saps natural essence . Man I am glad I got a ro this year otherwise Id be making a product with a bad aftertaste....I also have a local guy that advertises that a ro is just a shortcut . Ill live with the ro and the 29 gallons I made on my 2x6 last nite LOL-supersappy

Ed R

03-13-2013, 11:57 AM

I think this is just push back by several producers using "traditional methods" against the "Crown maples" of the advertising world.

Russell Lampron

03-13-2013, 03:46 PM

ennismaple

03-13-2013, 04:04 PM

Everyone is looking for a way to brand themselves. As long as its done in a positive way I don't have a problem with what you say about how you make your syrup - as long as you don't disparage the way I do things in an efort to make yourself look better. All buckets - good for you. Gravity tubing - just peachy. Wood fired - great (we are and are proud of it). Modern facility (i.e. high tech) - well done. Saying you're RO, tubing, filter press, UV light etc... free implies that people using these commonly accepted methods are doing something inferior.

I recall someone near Toronto who was marketing their syrup as unfiltered a few years ago. The ads implied that filtered syrup was inferior because it removed nutrients. Problem is, in Ontario syrup must be filtered to be properly graded for sale.

heus

03-13-2013, 05:13 PM

I agree that this type of marketing is bad for the industry. Especially when some tout that they are formaldehyde free.

DrewCP

03-13-2013, 05:37 PM

Some people will try anything to get a perceived edge, even if they have to step on a lot of toes to do it. Karma is a .......... look out.

DonMcJr

03-13-2013, 06:05 PM

What???!!!

That's ok cause I sell Beef from Cattle that aren't killed, Chickens too! Guess what? All the Vegetables I sell are grown without hurting the ground cause I don't plow I just plant the seeds where the Cattle and Chicken poop!

Oh and my Honey? Well I harvest it without making the Bees mad because I have Bee's that are my friends and I asked them to just put all the honey in my bottles instead of their comb.

Lastly my Maple Syrup is one of a kind! I talk to my maple trees and they agreed to drink more water so the sun magnifies their sap thus boiling it in their Leaves all Summer and that way when I set my buckets gently on the ground in the early spring they just piss out finished Pure Maple Syrup through the holes the leaf stems left when they fell off in the fall!

Oh...and I also have some Ocean Front Property for sale in Arizona for a really good deal if you are interested...

not_for_sale

03-13-2013, 06:14 PM

I am not sure why anyone would have a problem with any marketing technique unless it is unethical, sexually explicit or factually incorrect.

As long as there is an argument that can for a fact prove that in every case RO doesn't change the taste then it is OK to use that. Unless you can prove to me that boiling is not in fact hurting the sap it is is ok to use that.

In fact, I think it would be fair to advertise that you are not using cleaned cat litter buckets to collect the sap and infer that others do.

I am in marketing. And in the world of marketing the truth is nothing that can be defined. In fact, virtually everything you see in today's marketing is not true in the sense of what truth is that you try to teach your kids.

Marketing is psychology. It is preying on the fears and beliefs of your customers. Your customers are the prey and you are the hunter. Plain and simple.

not_for_sale

03-13-2013, 06:23 PM

To give an example: I had a client who makes outdoor wood boilers. He has one sales person who uses a bait and switch to reel in customers.

Do I find that unethical? Yes. Is it illegal? I doubt it. Is it working? Better than anything else that I have ever seen.

bowtie

03-13-2013, 06:25 PM

i do not think there is anything wrong with marketing the way you produce or manufacture something. i am not into degrading others ways either . i am not into organic foods but do like natural foods vs over processed. don't we all like to read made in usa or canada?is that really any different. i just had some b-grade on my homemade waffles last night that i made last year, i also have some light amber, to tell you the truth the b-grade was much better, more maple flavor better texture. today's syrup is vastly different from what was made even 100 yrs ago. not saying better, just different.old timestuff was generally darker,more distinct maple flavors, woodier if you will, smokey. i try to make the best grade i can, and the best flavor but i am not going to lay awake a night worring about how to make my syrup lighter. todays standard's are set by the gov't not the palet. i think the whole light vs dark is a bunch of crap myself, before you guys get up in arms, think about is fancy grade really any better than b-grade?? if it is legal by our gov't standards it should be up to each person to decide what they like. i don't want to here about dissolved solids in b-grade and why that makes it inferior, if it is it all should be junked then, anything less than dark amber should be thrown out.
some guys go about marketing the wrong way, i have always thought that if you have to put down someone elses product you probably have something to hide in your own. however lets not cast stones because someone is doing it different if it is a safe product so be it.

Greenwich Maple Man

03-13-2013, 06:40 PM

SevenCreeksSap

03-13-2013, 06:58 PM

I have to say I laughed outloud at this one ! Very funny !

so did we.!!

Russell B Hanson

03-13-2013, 07:34 PM

Another person who seems to be bragging about the old fashioned syrup posted at http://mapletrader.com/community/showthread.php?19796-Daylight-Savings-Time&highlight=daylight+savings He claims that the lack of moths or millers swimming in the bucket detracts from the traditional flavor!

The truth is that at Farmer's Markets (where we sell) many folks are very interested in the process of making syrup and are willing to pay a premium for traditionally produced syrup providing it tastes great, just as they are to buy free range chickens, hormone free grass fed beef, etc. There is a premium market that comes with artisan products.

crawflyer

03-13-2013, 08:42 PM

I have a question..and I really am not trying to tick anyone off..Does reverse osmosis remove any essential minerals from the sap? I have heard that it removes some potassium from the sap for one. Is that true?

not_for_sale

03-13-2013, 08:58 PM

It depends on the membrane and according to research also on the season if it changes tast or not. Early season taste is not changed but late season taste may be changed.

The question is if those minerals the RO removes would precipitate anyway with niter.

SWEETER CREATIONS

03-13-2013, 09:26 PM

Don Do you talk to all the trees or just a few ? I love honey but am extremely allergic to them but would love to make honey , maybe you could talk to them too.

Moser's Maple

03-13-2013, 10:52 PM

Just my 2 cents here
we have won one of the various world maple championships twice now
the first was with traditional buckets and gravity tubing
the second was with modern vacuum and an ro
now is one better than the other?????
just a thought
Jake Moser
Moser's Maple

DonMcJr

03-13-2013, 10:54 PM

I'm glad I made a few people laugh and myself. :lol:

I make Maple Syrup. Straight from my trees and boiled down and filtered then bottled.

I enjoy doing it and work hard to make it the best.

If that isn't good enough then don't buy it.

Pretty simple. I just hate when someone claims stuff is better when in all actuality it's the same product. Maybe RO removes some minerals maybe not, I do not know but to try and say approved ways are wrong and make people not in the know think using tube, gravity or Vacuum is bad is just wrong to me.

aws

03-14-2013, 05:22 AM

I don't know if he still does but I remember a seller on ebay selling "Kettle Syrup". He stated that it was made the old fashioned way in an iron kettle over an open wood fire. I think it was his way of circumventing the grading system and pawning some commercial grade syrup off on the unknowing public making them believe it is a better product.

Our first two years our syrup was pretty rustic and dark. Probably because of the long batch boils and all the ashes that fell into the pan while boiling. Filtered everything out and had some very dark and smokey tasting syrup. People loved it so much that last year and this year all of our product has been sold before we even made any syrup. This years syrup is much more professional and lighter, not as smokey tasting. I am wondering if some customers are going to be disappointed by our non commercial grade product. I think it is important to remember (in this industry and most others) that our customers do not have the same knowledge and therefor the same perspective as the people producing the product. It is the same with the timberframe homes/barns I build. Aesthetic quality issues that would really displease me (sloppy joinery, poor quality timber, etc.), most customers are never even aware of. With that in mind I think misleading people by overemphasizing information that is mostly opinion, or even inaccurate, is unethical. Good honest dealings may not make you rich but it's still the best practice.

maple maniac65

03-14-2013, 05:49 AM

free range maple trees

Hop Kiln Road

03-14-2013, 06:32 AM

My guess is 95% of the people on the face of this planet have never tasted maple syrup and 99% of the people have no idea how it is actually produced. The real issue to me is why the market doesn't expand more rapidly. Part of the problem is the industry is hobbled by regulation. Can you imagine California telling their wine growers that wine needs to be graded before sale? No, instead, the free market samples the product and the marketplace assigns its value. If someone buys a poor wine, typically, they'll spend more the next time and that expands the market in volume and dollars.

The numbers are staggering. The wealthiest 10% of of the world's population - 650,000,000 - would only get 2 oz each of a 10,000,000 gal annual production. And few of us are probably in the top 10%!

GeneralStark

03-14-2013, 07:58 AM

not_for_sale

03-14-2013, 08:02 AM

Here is a link to the PDF that discusses RO performance and effect.

http://www.centreacer.qc.ca/uploaded/Publications/108_en.pdf

GeneralStark

03-14-2013, 08:06 AM

Our first two years our syrup was pretty rustic and dark. Probably because of the long batch boils and all the ashes that fell into the pan while boiling. Filtered everything out and had some very dark and smokey tasting syrup. People loved it so much that last year and this year all of our product has been sold before we even made any syrup. This years syrup is much more professional and lighter, not as smokey tasting. I am wondering if some customers are going to be disappointed by our non commercial grade product. I think it is important to remember (in this industry and most others) that our customers do not have the same knowledge and therefor the same perspective as the people producing the product. It is the same with the timberframe homes/barns I build. Aesthetic quality issues that would really displease me (sloppy joinery, poor quality timber, etc.), most customers are never even aware of. With that in mind I think misleading people by overemphasizing information that is mostly opinion, or even inaccurate, is unethical. Good honest dealings may not make you rich but it's still the best practice.

I agree. Spouting one's opinion, or inaccurate information as fact in an effort to undercut others' efforts is unethical. Using marketing schemes that are common with corporate entities also undermines the integrity of the maple industry. Shouldn't we all be striving to make the best product possible so that demand will grow and more syrup can be made?

Whether or not you feel that RO affects syrup flavor, and I happen to believe it can in some cases, that is not the point I was trying to raise in the original post. I just don't understand why you would focus your marketing on what you don't do, instead of what you do to make an excellent product.

GeneralStark

03-14-2013, 08:18 AM

Here is a link to the PDF that discusses RO performance and effect.

http://www.centreacer.qc.ca/uploaded/Publications/108_en.pdf

Just to clarify, this study is comparing the performance of different membranes. The "taste" study was done by comparing syrup made from different concentrates produced using different membranes. They were not comparing syrup made from RO concentrate to syrup made from raw sap.

spud

03-14-2013, 08:20 AM

I have come across a few local producers here marketing their syrup as "produced without reverse osmosis, pipeline, or vacuum" and I am wondering if there are producers on the trader that do this. Does anyone market their syrup as four-wheeler, pickup truck, or tractor free?

If you do, why have you chosen this marketing technique and do you think it is working for you? Are there customers out there demanding this "type" of syrup? Does this really matter?

I understand that there are people in the industry that believe that ro affects the flavor, and that vacuum seems cruel or unusual punishment for the tree ( but will still hang four buckets on a tree), but I am trying to wrap my head around this marketing technique.

It seems to me that producing a good quality, excellent tasting syrup should be the major priority for any producer, and by focusing on what you don't do, you are missing something. I also think that it is bad for the industry on the whole to be suggesting that certain production techniques are better or worse that others. Why not just focus on making your product stand out for its quality and flavor and not by trying to undercut folks that produce good quality products using modern technology?

The guy posting this ad is a member of Maple Trader and his name is (Sweet Creation). Although I think his ad is silly he really is not doing any different then most company's trying to sell their products. A lot of ad's have some form of lie in them building up their product while trashing someones else's. His sales pitch will capture a small group of yuppy type people that will buy it based on what he is saying. We live in a country that is made up of lying people and lying businesses and it appears to be fully acceptable by most all Americans. I think the only people that could get angry at this person's maple syrup ad's are those that have never lied themselves ( and there are none). My point is we the people have done this to ourselves. Unless WE are willing to change our way's who are we to ask others to change their's?

Spud

jmayerl

03-14-2013, 08:27 AM

So no members are listed as "sweet creation"

Scribner's Mountain Maple

03-14-2013, 08:53 AM

What I say to people is that every batch is different, every producer is different in technique, but the finished product is usually the same. Isn't that true? I am a raw sap boiling fool, but not by choice. The things that distinguishes one producers syrup vs another is the method of production, the location, types and size of trees, collection methods, filtering process and boiling technique, etc.. This is true, yes? If yes, how do we "standardize" the marketing of this product to all be the same. Is it to squeeze out small producers to eliminate imperfections in processing?

I do not agree with old fashioned being better and an Artisan product being better. That an Artisan's product is for some reason worth more because they have an inefficient operation and have no choice but to boil raw sap, or use buckets, burn wood or whatever makes it "artisan". I mean the same people marketing as old-fashioned artisan wood fired are probably using 4 galvanized buckets on the trees and Orange home depot buckets for transport.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that we all do this differently, but have the same finished result. Just like the wine industry. They use different grapes, with a different process in different locations to generate a similar, but distinguished product.

What we need to do as an industry is to set the standards and all try to adhere to them when marketing. My stab at the standards; DO NOT cut down the competition. DO highlight/promote your process and product.

happy thoughts

03-14-2013, 09:16 AM

Oddmott

03-14-2013, 09:34 AM

Man, what an awesome and interesting (to me anyways) thread!

I'm definitely no syrup making genius, being pretty new to running my own bush. But I am a seasoned marketing vet and gotta say, I hear some whining/crying into corn flakes here :lol:

I actually enjoy ALL the marketing efforts I see different syrup producers employ. In fact, I'm currently working with 2 different Ontario producers to help them bring their marketing & advertising efforts from Cs up to A+s. And guess what? Each is taking a completely different tact or approach.

The beautiful thing - for folks in my line of work - is that maple syrup producers CAN'T rely on the "let my syrup flavour/quality do the talking" approach, because from year to year (no matter how modern or efficient your setup is) the flavours and quality provided by your bush can change. So a customer that loved your syrup 3 years ago, may be quite disappointed in the batch they buy this year.

This is when creative marketing takes over. If you have customers who have a connection to history and tradition and you still hang buckets and collect by horse drawn sleigh and evaporate over flaming oak, then absolutely you're going to promote those aspects of your operation in your marketing. You'd be an absolute idiot not to.

If you've invested tens of thousands into all the latest and greatest technology to provide the clearest, lightest, nearly flavourless syrup money can buy, then you promote those aspects to gain all the customers interested in those aspects you can.

It's not insulting or harmful to your fellow producers, it's simply a matter of speaking to customers and telling the right ones what they want to hear. A basic business principle.

Oddmott

03-14-2013, 09:38 AM

It's called marketing and maple is no different from any other product or industry. The best ad presentation or spin wins it. We haven't gotten to the point of hiring Victoria Secret models yet, but someone will think of it sooner or later. :lol:

Considering women make the vast majority of syrup purchasing decisions... I think you'd have better luck borrowing from the firefighter fundraising "men & their hoses" calendars approach.

Crosses over to maple syrup producers and their tubes quite well, don't you think?

happy thoughts

03-14-2013, 09:43 AM

Considering women make the vast majority of syrup purchasing decisions... I think you'd have better luck borrowing from the firefighter fundraising "men & their hoses" calendars approach.

Crosses over to maple syrup producers and their tubes quite well, don't you think?

LOL It's funny you said that because I was thinking the same thing as I posted that. Being of the female persuasion I was thinking of hiring the Chippendales for my promotion. But firefighter's will work, too :)

Snowy Pass Maple

03-14-2013, 09:51 AM

What we need to do as an industry is to set the standards and all try to adhere to them when marketing. My stab at the standards; DO NOT cut down the competition. DO highlight/promote your process and product.

Interesting discussion...

I agree w/above - and I think the question here is when do you cross from simply highlighting and promoting your process and why you choose do it, to innuendo or clear statements suggesting it is a better process and other processes are inferior in what is produced.

For example, I wouldn't take offense to the following:

RO producer - We use reverse osmosis to help lower our energy footprint.
All boiling producer - We only boil our sap over a wood fire as we aim to follow 100-year old traditional methods of production.

I think both the above are well accepted facts that could explain why someone made a personal choice in how they produce. We should all agree RO lowers energy input any way you measure it, and RO (I'm pretty sure) didn't exist 100 years ago, and wood is certainly traditional to that era.

Contrast with the following that I would find crossing a line into much harder to substantiate opinions -

RO producer - We use reverse osmosis and a hermetically sealed tubing system to both minimize sap boiling that degrades the product quality and produce the purest product available.
Traditional producer - We only boil over a wood fire and are RO and tubing-free to get the most authentic flavor possible

While these points are still sometimes argued, I think there are enough scientific studies that show up to moderate Brix levels, there is no taste difference even to professionals in a correctly executed process, and I think it's also clear that boiling producers can make excellent quality light syrup by following specific best practices.

It seems the point of contention is at what point that promotion of your chosen process goes to far.

As others note, the marketplace will ultimately decide, and hopefully as more people get exposed to syrup, they will learn to seek out smaller producers with their own unique character.

happy thoughts

03-14-2013, 10:09 AM

Interesting discussion...

I agree w/above - and I think the question here is when do you cross from simply highlighting and promoting your process and why you choose do it, to innuendo or clear statements suggesting it is a better process and other processes are inferior in what is produced.

For example, I wouldn't take offense to the following:

RO producer - We use reverse osmosis to help lower our energy footprint.
All boiling producer - We only boil our sap over a wood fire as we aim to follow 100-year old traditional methods of production.

I think both the above are well accepted facts that could explain why someone made a personal choice in how they produce. We should all agree RO lowers energy input any way you measure it, and RO (I'm pretty sure) didn't exist 100 years ago, and wood is certainly traditional to that era.

Contrast with the following that I would find crossing a line into much harder to substantiate opinions -

RO producer - We use reverse osmosis and a hermetically sealed tubing system to both minimize sap boiling that degrades the product quality and produce the purest product available.
Traditional producer - We only boil over a wood fire and are RO and tubing-free to get the most authentic flavor possible

While these points are still sometimes argued, I think there are enough scientific studies that show up to moderate Brix levels, there is no taste difference even to professionals in a correctly executed process, and I think it's also clear that boiling producers can make excellent quality light syrup by following specific best practices.

It seems the point of contention is at what point that promotion of your chosen process goes to far.

As others note, the marketplace will ultimately decide, and hopefully as more people get exposed to syrup, they will learn to seek out smaller producers with their own unique character.

Well said snowy! :) I'm still going with the "Men O'Maple"! :evil:

Oddmott

03-14-2013, 10:20 AM

Well said snowy! :) I'm still going with the "Men O'Maple"! :evil:

Can i audition?! I have 3 firefighter and 2 EMT buddies who'll be really jealous if i get into a calendar before they do!

happy thoughts

03-14-2013, 10:33 AM

can i audition?! I have 3 firefighter and 2 emt buddies who'll be really jealous if i get into a calendar before they do!

absolutely!!!! :)

spud

03-14-2013, 10:47 AM

happy thoughts

03-14-2013, 10:56 AM

I would be more then happy posing for one of the months on the calendar (but it's not going to be pretty).:) I was always told that a REAL MAPLE MAN can hold two jugs of syrup and a dozen maple donuts all at the same time.:o

Spud

LOL I'll be announcing open auditions any day now! :) You have no idea how happy you've made my lady friends at the senior center who all volunteered to be judges :)

Oddmott

03-14-2013, 10:59 AM

I would be more then happy posing for one of the months on the calendar (but it's not going to be pretty).:) I was always told that a REAL MAPLE MAN can hold two jugs of syrup and a dozen maple donuts all at the same time.:o

Spud

:o is right! Hopefully maple donuts were a lot smaller back in the day, cuz they're all about 2" thick these days... lol Holding a dozen of today's donuts would require some clever maneuvering!

Mark

03-14-2013, 11:10 AM

crawflyer

03-14-2013, 11:50 AM

free range maple trees

all my trees are free range..they can come and go as they please..most stay but some try to leave and just fall down.

not_for_sale

03-14-2013, 12:49 PM

The best marketing techniques are the ones that produce the most sales mid to long term. It is a fact in our society that negative ads work better than positive ads.

Why else do you think the biggest advertisers on the planet ( the presidential candidates and their campaigns) regularly employ those techniques.

Simple- they work on each any every one of us.

As far as the product goes. I've said this before: if you travel away from home, you pull into a truck stop with Johnny's World Famous Burgers and McDonalds - McDonalds is getting the lions share of the business. Why? Not because their burgers are better or worse, because you and everybody else knows what they are getting and have no idea if Johnny's are any good.

As far as Crown Maple goes. I would bet my MBA that they are doing RO not only because it is better for energy consumption but because it lets them work on taste standardization. Have you ever though about why there is Creamy peanut butter that has only peanuts in it and nothing else, but happens to have 50 % more calories? Easy - they process part of the peanuts into peanut oil and blend it into the peanut butter to make it creamy.

What if crown maple makes white maple sugar and then blends caramelized maple sugar in it to produce a standardized taste? As I have said. I would almost bet that is what is happening.

Oddmott

03-14-2013, 01:18 PM

Speaking of objectionable marketing practices... what kind of American company puts "Crown" in it's business name, considering the U.S.A's general disdain for royalty and the monarchy?

heus

03-14-2013, 01:44 PM

I didn't read the whole thread. I get tired of all the customers asking if we use formaldehyde because others advertise they don't. Why not advertise that it is made from a tubing system to prevent kids from peeing in the sap buckets.
Its the formaldehyde thing that gets me. Why advertise that you are formaldehyde-free implying that other people are using it? Didnt that go out of use in the 1960s?

sapman

03-14-2013, 04:39 PM

Didnt that go out of use in the 1960s?[/QUOTE]

If not, it should have. I seem to recall seeing a guy buying a bottle of the pills when I started in 1992.

happy thoughts

03-14-2013, 05:23 PM

Considering women make the vast majority of syrup purchasing decisions... I think you'd have better luck borrowing from the firefighter fundraising "men & their hoses" calendars approach.

Taking your lead, I had some fun with photoshop and created a label today for my fictitious product which theoretically would not be made in VT but would be produced to VT standards (higher brix). So would it be ethical or legal to call it Vermont style? Just curious about how far you can push the marketing envelope. Anyhoo, here's my silly little label...
7388

spud

03-14-2013, 07:14 PM

I wanted to apologize to Mike at Sweet Creations for an earlier post I made. It has been brought to my attention that the person with the humorous ads is (Vermont creation Hardwood). I believe he was the same one that's ads talked about (slow cooked the old fashion way) last season.

Spud

Oddmott

03-14-2013, 08:48 PM

Taking your lead, I had some fun with photoshop and created a label today for my fictitious product which theoretically would not be made in VT but would be produced to VT standards (higher brix). So would it be ethical or legal to call it Vermont style? Just curious about how far you can push the marketing envelope. Anyhoo, here's my silly little label...
7388

Hahaha, love it HT! Would definitely git some to muscle up my breakfast!

SWEETER CREATIONS

03-14-2013, 09:20 PM

Spud : Thank you for the apology no harm done ! Mike

Bucket Head

03-14-2013, 10:55 PM

I've enjoyed reading this thread. Until the "dozen donuts" thing. Then I got,...um..., depressed.............

Anyway, how does Don get the trees to consistantly hit those buckets? Thats remarkable. I'm going to knock down my competition with my new jugs that will state, "No sugar maple sap was harmed in the making of this pure maple syrup".

I had another producer at a show tell everyone, "my syrup is thicker and sweeter than the other guy's". Yeah, nice huh. Pretty sad what others will do and say about other syrupmakers.

Steve

DonMcJr

03-15-2013, 12:27 AM

I just don't understand why anyone has to "Market" Pure Maple Syrup at all, I mean for me I can't make enough fast enough! I was at a Fishing Meeting with roughly 30 people, all men and I had about 10 bottles and I thought it was gonna get to an arm wrestle contest or something to buy them 10 bottles!

Around here folks love pure Maple Syrup and it sells itself!

Although I do think I'm gonna try the opposite of "Men-O-Maple" and try the "Women-O-Maple"... I have 12 months to fill any Takers? Email me a Picture and what Month you want!:lol:

Also:

I wanted to apologize to Mike at Sweet Creations for an earlier post I made. It has been brought to my attention that the person with the humorous ads is (Vermont creation Hardwood). I believe he was the same one that's ads talked about (slow cooked the old fashion way) last season.

Spud

That's interesting if it's really him... cause I found this:

I have several 400' runs, 30 to 50 taps on them.

Here: http://mapletrader.com/community/showthread.php?18462-5-16-run-length&p=201737#post201737

325abn

03-15-2013, 06:39 AM

Wow, just WOW!!!

I have always been of the belief that my station in life is NOT determined by anothers. :)

mapleguy

03-15-2013, 08:20 AM

If maple syrup sells itself as stated here what are you guys worried about get out and cut more firewood and quit the whining just my opinion!

wdchuck

03-15-2013, 08:40 AM

As far as marketing techniques, I think you've crossed over the line when you imply that the other guys product is inferior to your own. In a very few cases, someone out there may be making off flavored syrup that is indeed inferior. For the most part, we're all making the same end product under a myriad of methods. As long as those methods aren't illegal or below common standards, they're not wrong, and those end results may have a slight character difference. A rising tide raises all the boats- bad PR hurts us all.

Oddmott

03-15-2013, 08:47 AM

I don't know what it's like south of the border... but up here in Ontario, most producers I know are smaller (2000 taps or less) and they sell their product via farm-gate & farmers' markets.

While I wouldn't say it gets "cutthroat", when you consider that a community of 100,000 generally has only one farmers' market but may have 20+ syrup producers the competition to attract sales does get very... vigorous! Especially when almost all farmers' markets try to limit the number of competing vendors they allow.
Of those 20+ community syrup producers, only 2 or 3 will be allowed as FM vendors.

When you're spending the time, money and physical effort that sugaring requires, you can't afford to just sit and wait for "syrup to sell itself".

not_for_sale

03-15-2013, 09:21 AM

Oddmott,

I completely agree. To often business owners use "hope" as a marketing strategy and then are surprised that the tide ( to use another picture that someone painted here) raises them with all the other boats and does what it wants with them.

Such as "I didn't get their contact information, but I gave them my card, I HOPE they will come back or call".

One goal of marketing in any market is that you sell faster for a higher price/profit than your competitor. And that you control the action. Why? Because it means you are going to win and they are going to lose. You are going to succeed, grow and flourish while they are left to pick up the scraps. That is capitalism.

Why do people think capitalism only is valid if it doesn't affect them?

Another analogy is the two camping friends in the woods when the hungry bear shows up. One guy sits down, puts his running shoes on. The other asks... "Do you think you can outrun the bear?"

Answer: " I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you".

Same exact thing. Once you take it as a life or death situation you'll do what it takes.

;-)

Scribner's Mountain Maple

03-15-2013, 09:28 AM

Not_For_sale wrote:
"The best marketing techniques are the ones that produce the most sales mid to long term. It is a fact in our society that negative ads work better than positive ads.

Why else do you think the biggest advertisers on the planet ( the presidential candidates and their campaigns) regularly employ those techniques.

Simple- they work on each any every one of us. "

I read this and can't argue with it, however it bugs me. I think we have an opportunity to set a BETTER standard than politicians. As much as I agree that negative ads do work, i believe that if the Maple industry practiced higher standards and didn't use negative ad campaigns to promote their products that the entire industry could be elevated. I know the public likely wouldn't notice, but we would. It would make the entire industry stronger if we built it up rather than tearing each other down. I know at one point I may have said to a customer that I felt my glass containers were better than my competitions plastic and that they allowed the customer to see the product better. This was a sales ploy. it worked, but I now realize I don't need to **** on the next guy, rather just advocate for my own product and methods. I encourage everyone to take the lead in your region.

West Mountain Maple

03-15-2013, 10:18 AM

Getting back to the original post on this thread, I would say that there are two main groups of target market, the biggest bieng a huge untapped pool of people who know nearly nothing about syrup, and maybe even never had it, the second bieng the many established syrup buyers who know about, and certainly have their own preference when it comes to syrup, just like light vs dark. Now, of those with preferences, do you think ANYONE is going out of their way to find oil fired syrup over wood fired, or RO'd sap over painstakingly boiled, or to find a producer that is using high vac to suck sap over one who takes what nature gives. In fact I would say it just the other way around. When i discuss maple stuff with people and the various methods of doing things, the usual reactions are, "really?, heating oil?, yuk" , or, "the vacuum SUCKS the sap out of the tree?, that doesn't seem like it would be good for the trees!" There are enough people who care about these factors to market to them. Its the small guys last edge on corporate syrup.

motowbrowne

03-15-2013, 10:39 AM

Obviously marketing is a touchy subject. I think saying, "I don't use vacuum in my production method, the highest vacuum you can achieve on earth is 30 inches of mercury and in some situations maple producers top 25 inches of mercury in the vacuum systems they use to collect sap, crazy huh?" is perfectly fine. Is it true that vacuum can be used to increase yield without a negative effect on trees, sure. Did I say otherwise, no I didn't.

Can I say, "I don't use an RO in my production method. Modern methods use RO technology to concentrate the sap, resulting in the sap spending less time in the evaporator exposed to heat and getting less of a chance to carmelize. Also, while the RO reduces the amount of fuel used to cook the sap, it uses lots of electricty (which comes from burning something)." I think that's just fine. Firewood is a short cycle source of fuel (trees grow faster than coal (to make electricity) or oil to cook sap), and I would rather burn wood than electricity. Did I say that ROs make syrup taste bad? Nope.

Just saying, as long as we are careful, we can all market our syrup positively without stepping on anyone's feet. Maybe you cook with oil after you concentrate with an RO and collect on vacuum, but you power from solar panels and hydro power and burn biodiesel. You will have a markedly different marketing technique than me or anyone else, but that's fine as long as you aren't directly slandering other methods of production. Nobody says you have to provide the pros and cons of every method of production. If you want to imply that using RO isn't your favorite way to do it, that's fine. If the customer wants to look up the info, they are welcome to do that.

West Mountain Maple

03-15-2013, 10:47 AM

right on mo

DonMcJr

03-15-2013, 12:23 PM

I still say the taste of Pure Maple Syrup sells itself and if I was in a life or death situation I sure wouldn't be relying on Producing Maple Syrup that you can only make say a month a year!:lol:

bowtie

03-15-2013, 12:51 PM

i agree that negative advertising works but that does not mean i will use it. i would rather be poor and go to bed at night knowing i am doing the right thing. the problem is that ethics and morality are a dying set of values in our cutthroat society. it will change but it will not be pretty when it does.
i will use my technique to sell my products but not by refuteing someone elses so long as it an accepted way.
as for cutthroat business, you have no idea, it is not just in maple, obviously but when a retailer cuts his/her prices to make a sale it hurts the whole industry. i understand very well that you need to sell to stay in business but by undercutting your competitors and yourself it is a stop gap fix not long term.it is very hard to upsell after this. as long as you a have fair price and are not gouging, you should feel comfortable with your price. i must add that being ethical and selling at fair price means you will likely not last long in whatever business you are i, a sad fact that is all to often true it seems.

you can not lie to the person in the mirror.

Oddmott

03-15-2013, 02:07 PM

I think the disconnect here is that, generally, syrup producers are of a different breed. Typically harder working, cherish the past, foster a connection to nature and basically just nicer people.

So the most slightest negative comment by another is deemed "immoral" or "lowdown".

Most outsiders - and a growing number of producers - just aren't that rigid in their definitions.

All comments raised - with the exception of the mention of formaldehyde use - are perfectly valid and I have no problem with them.

~ Your glass bottles may indeed be far nicer than the other guy's plastic jugs AND allow your customers to better preview your product - absolutely nothing wrong with this statement, the second part is complete truth and the first part depends on the buyer preference. Nothing underhanded about it.

~ Your syrup may indeed be thicker, darker and more flavourful than the other guys ultra light. Nothing wrong with saying that and expressing your preference for such a product in an effort to sell more. It's again, up to your customers to let their taste determine whether they support your claim or the other guy's claim that his ultra light is better.

And so on and so forth... you get the point.

Not a single gripe raised actually featured any sort of dirty pool approach to marketing. It's simply a bunch of passionate producers expressing their preferences in the hopes of attracting like-minded buyers.

In marketing and sales there's a major rule: It's always best to convince 10% of customers 100% of the way rather than convince 100% of the customers 10% of the way...

Don't worry about everyone... just worry about everyone your product is ideal for. And communicate with them however, whenever, wherever you EVER get the chance.

not_for_sale

03-15-2013, 10:16 PM

I think the different breed of syrup producer are pretty well classified in Don's post above. The hobbyist, whom doesn't need to rely on Maple Syrup sales and the Maple Syrup business.

While there may be a honorable approach, a better approach one thing is pretty clear: the customers decide with their feet. And I guarantee that 100 years of advertising have proven hat differentiation based on customers fears and worries work better than appealing to customers good feelings.

Ask yourself this:

1 - why do guns sell better when there is a shooting and a government push for gun control.
2 - why does insulation sell better if people are worried that energy prices rise?
3 - why so you believe that Obama is a socialist?
4 - why do you believe that Romney is (more) out of touch than Obama?
5 - why does hoarding happen
6 - why are there scores of people prepping for an economic collapse?
7 - why are there lines in front of gas stations when Bush invaded Iraq in 1990?

Fears! And there are many, many more examples.

The fact is that humans and other animals have primal fears that can be tapped into to influence them. All it takes is one business owner in a market to employ those techniques. It happens every day.

I have many years of experience in this. That is how I make my living. I am a hired gun, and if you hire me your competition is toast. And i don't employ a toaster. It doesn't mean my marketing is sleazy. All I do is use what works best. As long as its legal or ethical for the particular line of business.

I have yet to see a market where positive works better than negative. Not one. Not even marketing of a church.

not_for_sale

03-15-2013, 10:22 PM

Bowtie,

The unfortunate thing is that the wolfs like to eat sheep. I agree with everything you say.

However, the wolves don't think it's wrong to eat sheep. And the wolves win. And the winner writes history.

This is a philosophical discussion about right and wrong. However, that discussion is has been retired a long time ago in marketing and advertising.

DonMcJr

03-16-2013, 12:01 AM

Just out of the blue here, but with Michigan's Cottage Food Law you can sell Maple Syrup, under $15,000 I think and not be inspected by the Agricutlure dept.

You have to put a sticker on each bottle that says, " Made in a Facility Not Inspected by the Michigan Department of Agriculture"

Talk about a negative thing there...almost EVERYONE asks me about that sticker and I have to explain my process and use of all Food Grade buckets etc. and then explain why the sticker is one there...

Just had to comment on that that definitely does not help sales for us small guys!

I usually end that with " if it's gonna kill you it's gonna kill me cause I use my Syrup on everything from in my Coffee to on my Ice Cream and everything in between!

not_for_sale

03-16-2013, 12:03 AM

I was wondering what that sticker would do.

childsr2

03-17-2013, 07:21 PM

I've enjoyed reading this thread. Many have touched on using reverse osmosis. I have a question for the group. Should there be a limit on how far sap can be concentrated using ro?

not_for_sale

03-17-2013, 07:59 PM

There is a natural limit where it will become more expensive to create the pressure than to boil it.

hookhill

03-17-2015, 01:27 PM

GeneralStark

03-22-2015, 08:43 AM

Interesting debate. We boil on outdated equipment, some sap goes through an RO, all of it comes from tubing. Now, given the choice to eat syrup made from our operation, or a non RO, bucket operation with welded stainless equipment and no diatomaceous earth.......... I don't know. Sap that is going through miles of plastic, pumps, membranes that can't be better than a traditional bucket operation on updated stainless equipment.

So why do modern operations keep winning syrup awards. I see that Glenn Goodrich just won an award for syrup flavor and quality...and his operation is large and modern as they come. The usual winners at our local ag. fair are almost always vac. tubing, ro, and even oil-fired!!:o. Sure there are fewer and fewer "traditional" operations every year so perhaps fewer options means people's flavor perception of maple syrup is changing.

GeneralStark

04-05-2018, 09:17 AM

markcasper

04-05-2018, 09:29 AM

Perhaps it is time to revive this old thread. I have been thinking recently about what makes "traditional" maple syrup. Given that traditions change and evolve with time, how do we distinguish "traditional" maple syrup. The Native Americans used hollowed out logs and hot rocks to evaporate water from sap. Colonists used metal kettles to boil over an open fire and used proper spouts instead of just slashing the tree with an axe like the Native American heathens... Are these the "traditional" methods?

At the time of the invention of the "flue pan" this was a major development for the industry. It also lead the shift from batch to continuous flow evaporators. At the time was this seen as a major technological improvement, but were some opposed to this development for philosophical reasons? Was this the first major shift away from "traditional" techniques?

As has been discussed in this thread, it is all about marketing. So, for those that market their own syrup, how do you decide how to do so given your own given production methods?

In my opinion, burning with wood sets any operation apart from using a hydrocarbon. Many of the people on this forum burn oil or gas in their evaporators, but then turn around and complain and are concerned about so called global warming. I don't like using tubing, I use it because if I didn't I couldn't or wouldn't make maple syrup. Same for RO.

I think you have opened a can of worms here where the answer is difficult. I can say that all of the technology has done nothing but put more syrup on the market and drive the price down.

ecolbeck

04-05-2018, 11:35 AM

In my opinion, burning with wood sets any operation apart from using a hydrocarbon. Many of the people on this forum burn oil or gas in their evaporators, but then turn around and complain and are concerned about so called global warming. I don't like using tubing, I use it because if I didn't I couldn't or wouldn't make maple syrup. Same for RO.

I think you have opened a can of worms here where the answer is difficult. I can say that all of the technology has done nothing but put more syrup on the market and drive the price down.

Your argument about tubing and RO could also apply to using oil, it allows some people to make syrup who otherwise wouldn't or couldn't. I would advise caution about lumping oil burners into a group who simultaneously complains about climate change. I seriously doubt that they are that disconnected from reality.

prairietapper

04-05-2018, 12:48 PM

Your argument about tubing and RO could also apply to using oil, it allows some people to make syrup who otherwise wouldn't or couldn't. I would advise caution about lumping oil burners into a group who simultaneously complains about climate change. I seriously doubt that they are that disconnected from reality.

actually I am just amused someone thinks burning wood is not burning hydrocarbons.
Touting that the source of the hydrocarbons is the very bush being tapped and it helps in maintaining that bush... that I understand

amaranth farm

04-05-2018, 04:06 PM

Radio Silence.

berkshires

04-05-2018, 08:14 PM

GeneralStark

04-06-2018, 07:03 AM

Your bump seems to indicate again anyone trying to differentiate themselves, at least as far as eschewing vac/ro/defoamer, is using a less than ethical approach which is damaging, or has the potential to damage, the industry. Yes?

Yes I think that is a generally accurate view of my opinion on the matter. And my bump is because this has recently come up in some conversations related to a couple markets I participate in. Another maple producer has been suggesting that my product is inferior to theirs as I use an RO.... I am generally curious, as I was when I posted this thread originally, as to why producers would choose to suggest that using an RO makes inferior product just to get a sale.

amaranth farm

04-06-2018, 07:21 AM

Radio Silence.

DrTimPerkins

04-06-2018, 07:27 AM

... anyone trying to differentiate themselves, at least as far as eschewing vac/ro/defoamer, is using a less than ethical approach which is damaging, or has the potential to damage, the industry. Yes?

Differentiating oneself from the competition is not, in and of itself, unethical or damaging to the industry. It comes down to more the WAY in which the differences are made.

For example, you can't advertise your syrup as being "below the lead level of most maple syrup", as it implies that most other syrups have higher lead.

Another example, "no paraformaldehyde used in our maple production." It is not permitted to use paraformaldehyde anywhere in maple production, but this sort of statement implies that others do use it.

Producers need to distinguish their product in a way that doesn't impugn the purity of the product overall or put others in a negative light. It's a fine line.

The type of advertising used in the above examples would, most likely, be illegal and subject to regulatory action.

Several years of research have shown that RO syrup, from the same batch of sap, makes syrup that has a flavor indistinguishable from that made by non-RO sap (or high-RO sap).

The thing I find a bit ironic/amusing in all of this is that some people who claim that syrup made the "old-fashioned" way over a wood fire without RO, is better because it has a nice smoky flavor. Technically that would be an off-flavor and not allowed in maple syrup. You might have gotten accustomed to it and actually like that flavor, but it is not a flavor that is inherent in maple syrup...it is contamination.

amaranth farm

04-06-2018, 07:31 AM

Radio Silence.

amaranth farm

04-06-2018, 07:33 AM

Radio Silence.

WESTMAPLES

04-06-2018, 07:34 AM

Differentiating oneself from the competition is not, in and of itself, unethical or damaging to the industry. It comes down to more the WAY in which the differences are made.

For example, you can't advertise your syrup as being "below the lead level of most maple syrup", as it implies that most other syrups have higher lead.

Another example, "no paraformaldehyde used in our maple production." It is not permitted to use paraformaldehyde anywhere in maple production, but this sort of statement implies that others do use it.

Producers need to distinguish their product in a way that doesn't impugn the purity of the product overall or put others in a negative light. It's a fine line.

The type of advertising used in the above examples would, most likely, be illegal and subject to regulatory action. thank you dr tim

GeneralStark

04-06-2018, 07:38 AM

I find it interesting that you have such an issue with a small producer that might some year produce 50 gallons of syrup, and yet you find Maple Guild's website "Slick."

In the thread that was deleted I pointed out in response that slick is a good description, but not in a complimentary way. Snake oil slick is more like it. Tell me with a straight face on one page you have 750k taps, then on the next you can identify the single tree that made the sap that went into my 16 odd ounces of syrup. On another page slag the whole wood fired industry by claiming that boiling close to flame produces an inferior product:

That is about as inflammatory and incorrect as it can get, yet you champion their marketing.

Maple Guild is much more a force that will impact your sales than myself or a myriad of persons that produce less than 100 gallons per season. Yet, you seem convinced that someone trying to find a position in the sub 100 gallon sales is somehow going to topple your empire. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Wow. Take a breath... I am not championing Maple Guild or their marketing. My intention in the thread that was deleted was merely to point out that Maple Guild is not merely a large producer flooding the market with bulk syrup... And I do think their website is "slick" from a technical perspective. I don't necessarily agree with their marketing strategy. Though I do agree with their assertion that syrup made with steam is decidedly different.

I think this thread is pretty specific. If you market your syrup as "ro free" or "vacuum free", perhaps you could enlighten us as to why...

Scm

04-06-2018, 07:52 AM

..........

WESTMAPLES

04-06-2018, 07:57 AM

I think this thread is pretty specific. If you market your syrup as "ro free", perhaps you could enlighten us as to why... honestly i went to a local farmers market last year, saw a vendor sell maple syrup, they had a sign saying things that would that would make any size maple producers blood boil. i talked with the vendor with a sound recording of what they where telling people was right about theres and wrong with others syrup. i spoke with the person running it and told then the persons views where unfair to others in the maple industy and if they were not asked to remove the sign and keep there verbal respones on track to let the syrup sell itself, they would have a group of sugar makers breathing down there necks if they knew what was happening !!! vendor was banned because they turned irate when asked to remove the sign.

amaranth farm

04-06-2018, 08:06 AM

Radio Silence.

amaranth farm

04-06-2018, 08:07 AM

Radio Silence.

WESTMAPLES

04-06-2018, 08:15 AM

For sake of complete discussion please enumerate the things that should make blood boil. enumerate ?? please dumb it down as i don`t understand big words thanks

amaranth farm

04-06-2018, 08:17 AM

Radio Silence.

n8hutch

04-06-2018, 08:28 AM

Kinda Moving the Goal Post there Amaranth Farm, there's a big difference between using an RO, and boiling High Brix or Hyper Brix which requires different evaporator.

For the record I have not boiled a drop of sap this year that wasn't ran through my RO and I have also not made a drop of light syrup, it's all been of the Dark Robust variety.

But I get it I used to think that some of this new technology was not such a good idea, and that oil fired syrup was not as good, but in the end I was just biased to my own ways and in time I learned better, you'll come around eventually.

amaranth farm

04-06-2018, 08:31 AM

Radio Silence.

amaranth farm

04-06-2018, 08:34 AM

Radio Silence.

WESTMAPLES

04-06-2018, 08:36 AM

-that traditional buckets and taps contain unsafe amounts of lead - all tubing, plastic tanks, collection methods contain BPA ( ours are BPA free ) - your typcal maple syrup was processed with methods that are not environmentally safe and sustainable ( we care for our trees year round) - and the biggest kicker to me was that only there product was produced with only welded ss equipment and other sugarmakers use only lead soldered equipment- there was a few more but i cant go on all day , what does enumerate ?? mean now that ive answered your question

WESTMAPLES

04-06-2018, 08:44 AM

verb (used with object), enumerated, enumerating.
1.
to mention separately as if in counting; name one by one; specify, as in a list:
Let me enumerate the many flaws in your hypothesis. thanks bud i had to empty my folder just for this

n8hutch

04-06-2018, 08:56 AM

You have implied that in virtually every Post you make. You just did it a few times in your last few posts.

Anybody that's made a lot of syrup knows that some Batches have more/Different Flavors than others, that doesn't make one bad a bad batch or one a special batch of Just makes them different. You would have to have a lot more than 1 sample from each method to do a true blind taste test. I just think that when you poke holes at other people's methods it gives off bad vibes and eventually will backfire in the end.

GeneralStark

04-06-2018, 09:07 AM

Because there is no money in replication, this is an academic achievement and the status of current academic research across disciplines, there has been one basic paper written on the effects of RO on colour, taste and consistancy. That study is touted as being cannon with respect to RO not impacting product to any extent. WHy then is Goodrich convinced otherwise?

I market my syrup as "your grandfather's syrup." Part of my story is that during the years of my past life as a IT grunt, making sure people who snack all day long over their keyboard are able to do work in-between because they could have a co-worker email every month or so and complain that their keyboard was broke, I was faced time and time again with the uninteded consequences of more levels of complexity; that were touted as being the latest in timesaving and cutting edge technology. So, when I cashed out and decided to grow fruit, I adopted a approach that would eschew the trappings of modern is better. I did not specifically look for land that would allow me to make syrup. But, in addition to prime orchard land, I was hoping the property would allow for either micro-hydro or syrup production. No micro-hydro here. However, complexity is a part of my educating the populace. A huge amount of the public is similarly of the opinion that modernity is not a panacea and that the old ways are not useless. Psychology is a wonderous thing.

The other side of no R/O is the discussion of color and flavour. Light syrups are conundrums. If you have read the Neerings, you would have run across the history that the founding fathers set the precedent for paying more for light sugars as they had the least flavour profile other than sweet. The call for syrup production was done to counter the taxes on sugar. Fast forward. Still to this day, a premium is paid for the lightest syrups. THe ones that are known to have the least amount of that Maple Flavour. Hence, the chase for less time on that evil flame that produces a burnt caramel flavour. Interestingly enough, when i did a taste test last year, (http://mapletrader.com/community/showthread.php?31000-The-taste-of-syrup-and-how-to-find-a-buyer-for-each-grade....) caramel was an oft sensed flavour profile of light syrups. Syrups that had been heavily RO'd.

To my mind, the chase of RO is one of money, not flavour. Perhaps there is a market for Maple Syrup that does not taste like Maple, but my customers have a different take. One person summed it up when they relayed that they had lived their whole life in NH and always bought the light, because it cost the most and they figured it was the premium product. Then they tasted mine, and were astounded that it had what they wanted, Maple flavour. It reinforces that my process is giving the consumer the flavour they want, and it does so without RO. THerefore, I do talk about how RO can effect color and flavour.

Why is that such a threat to the industry? How is that misleading in any way shape or form?

You're jumping around here a bunch so bear with me. The Glen Goodrich quote you used was taken out of context as he was referring to using a high brix RO with a conventional evaporator. Proctor is not the only research center that has looked at RO impacts on flavor. Acer in Quebec has studied it quite a bit as well. Then there is the fact that at fairs across the maple region, syrups made with modern tech. are winning awards and are in many cases winning against "traditional" (whatever that means) syrup.

Some people prefer light syrup, and some people prefer dark. One is not indicative of a more or less authentic maple syrup. Maple syrup has a variety of complex flavor profiles and in my experience it makes good sense to celebrate them all and allow customers to decide what they like and want to purchase. I like to give people options and let them try it all, and this is why I desire to produce as much of the different grades as possible. Additionally, for those of us that make
confections and other products with the maple syrup we produce, lighter syrups are gold.

Processing sap with an RO can have an impact on the grade of syrup produced, but it will often tend to make the syrup darker as the machine can heat up the sap and lead to more microbial growth and thus more conversion of sucrose to glucose and fructose which caramelize more. I don't know what makes you think that an RO will automatically make lighter syrup, but you are incorrect.

You seem to be suggesting that you think that to have an authentic maple flavour, like your granddad's, an RO can not be used in the process. It would also seem that you are approaching this issue with some sort of dogma that you are then attempting to impart onto your customers. It is misleading as the information you are sharing is likely incorrect given what you have stated.

GeneralStark

04-06-2018, 09:10 AM

I never once indicated that people should not produce the modern way.

No but you have suggested that if they do, their syrup will not have the authentic flavor that yours does. Right?

n8hutch

04-06-2018, 09:24 AM

I revised my post, I don't know what your true beliefs are but the Message you convey quite often is that your syrup is better because of the methods that you choose to use. I'm happy for you I really am everyone should have pride in their product. And for all I know you may not be doing it on purpose but it sure seems like you think that you can't make great tasting syrup with an RO.

JoeJ

04-06-2018, 09:30 AM

[QUOTE=amaranth farm;354159]WHile I am not fond of rhetorical tactics of diversion, I will defer at the moment.
To my mind, the chase of RO is one of money, not flavour. Perhaps there is a market for Maple Syrup that does not taste like Maple, but my customers have a different take. One person summed it up when they relayed that they had lived their whole life in NH and always bought the light, because it cost the most and they figured it was the premium product. Then they tasted mine, and were astounded that it had what they wanted, Maple flavour. It reinforces that my process is giving the consumer the flavour they want, and it does so without RO. THerefore, I do talk about how RO can effect color and flavour.

It is kind of interesting that many people that visit my sugar house and taste my syrup made with RO'd sap say that they have never tasted such good syrup. I do think that many of these visitors would most probably like the taste of just about any producers syrup. How ever, some people come to my sugar house to buy syrup year after year because they like the taste so much. I even have a lady from the MT Washington NH area that makes a special trip every year to buy my syrup because she cannot find any syrup in New Hampshire that tastes as good as mine. (This is a true story) She usually purchases 10-12 gallons of Dark Robust and is coming over to make her purchase April 14th.

Joe

n8hutch

04-06-2018, 09:38 AM

DaveB

04-06-2018, 09:53 AM

The RO/Vacuum debate is highly relative. You can use an RO to take sap from 2% to 4% or 8% and still be within natural variance. How would that be different from collecting and boiling sap from a tree that puts out sap with that sugar content? The same thing happens with vacuum. Vacuum occurs naturally and is part of the process. I don't think that it impacts the flavor so to me that one is more of a marketing gimmick like someone who says that their sap is "wild harvested" or "minimally processed" or something like that. It's something that we all do and the producer is just trying to differentiate themselves.

I've seen the RO debate marketed both ways. I've seen guys tote it is as being on the cutting edge of technology or energy efficient and I've also seen it billed by guys who feed on some consumers fear of technology.

I do agree that that producers should not make claims that their syrup is better than someone elses because they produce it differently unless they have empirical evidence to back that up.

Where I can see a difference is producers that bring their syrup to a high brix using an RO. I purchase syrup from producers and that's one of the questions that I ask because I've tasted really I brix syrup and it just doesn't taste the same to me. It just doesn't have enough time for the flavor profile to develop if you asked me and I think that is where a difference can be but again, it doesn't make someones syrup necessarily better than anyone elses.

DaveB

04-06-2018, 10:00 AM

[QUOTE=JoeJ;354181]
I want that Lady's # lol
But seriously sometimes people will buy from you for the oddest reasons it may just be a feeling they have about you or a memory of the first time they visited your sap house. Or it could be your mixture of trees. Senses are effected by many things. I have people that buy syrup from me that drive from all over and pay significantly more than the could at other places, I don't know why I just say thank you and smile as they go.

I think a lot of people base their expectation of syrup based on what they by at the grocery story or from a packer and don't realize that maple syrup is like wine and that different producers syrup will have subtle flavor differences. I've literally tasted syrup from all over and there are regions that are better than others (to my taste buds!). It's just the soil and trees and even the weather that year.

DrTimPerkins

04-06-2018, 10:47 AM

Where I can see a difference is producers that bring their syrup to a high brix using an RO. I purchase syrup from producers and that's one of the questions that I ask because I've tasted really I brix syrup and it just doesn't taste the same to me. It just doesn't have enough time for the flavor profile to develop if you asked me and I think that is where a difference can be but again, it doesn't make someones syrup necessarily better than anyone elses.

Not on our website yet, but from blind taste tests (generally from folks who know maple flavor, producers, packers, etc.) from a recent Maple Digest article...

Together, these results indicate that
syrup produced with High-Brix systems
has flavor that is generally appealing
and liked, and is characteristic of
pure maple syrup. While these results
do not provide an indication of whether
the use of High-Brix systems results
in any impacts on flavor, they do suggest
that the production of syrup with
High-Brix systems doesn’t generally
result in significant or adverse impacts
on syrup flavor.

18485

n8hutch

04-06-2018, 10:49 AM

I also think we may as a maple community want to be careful how we approach " Big Packer" syrup, there's an awful lot of Syrup out there and some of these guys selling retail in the Box Stores are certainly selling good syrup.but I could be in the minority on this opinion

DaveB

04-06-2018, 11:18 AM

Not on our website yet, but from blind taste tests (generally from folks who know maple flavor, producers, packers, etc.) from a recent Maple Digest article...

Together, these results indicate that
syrup produced with High-Brix systems
has flavor that is generally appealing
and liked, and is characteristic of
pure maple syrup. While these results
do not provide an indication of whether
the use of High-Brix systems results
in any impacts on flavor, they do suggest
that the production of syrup with
High-Brix systems doesn’t generally
result in significant or adverse impacts
on syrup flavor.

18485

That is interesting and I do appreciate the data. For me personally I have observed a difference but that might just be me. One time was when I was buying field syrup from a bulk buyer and he gave me a drum and I thought it didn't have a rich maple flavor, almost bland and he told me that it came from a producer that he knew ran his RO to a high brix. The other time came from a producer who did that by accident and you could tell the difference in his syrup. He even admitted that.

Anecdotally, I was in Lake Placid this past weekend and stopped by the Cornell sugarhouse near there and I asked them about their RO and one of the comments he made was you don't want to take the sugar too high or it will loose some of its flavor.

Like I said, I don't think it makes any syrup better or worse than another...it just tastes different to me.

Just out of curiosity, what was considered "high brix" in the survey? I'm wondering if that might be a difference.

DrTimPerkins

04-06-2018, 12:25 PM

Just out of curiosity, what was considered "high brix" in the survey? I'm wondering if that might be a difference.

High brix was defined at 30-40 Brix in that study.

Over the years we have learned that a great deal of what people "perceive" as flavor comes from two things: their eyes and what they know about the syrup beforehand. If you don't let them see the syrup and don't tell them what it is, they usually have a very hard time. Most people are simply not able to strongly distinguish the multitude of complex flavors in maple, but can merely taste "sweet" and some level of "intensity" of flavor.

It is true that RO will produce lighter syrup as one increases in concentration ABOVE 8-10 Brix. Below 8-10 Brix, RO syrup is actually a tiny bit darker (probably due to heating of the sap/concentrate during the concentration process), but above that there is a gradual progression towards lighter syrup. That will affect flavor to some degree, it is just that it is not enough to be perceptible to most people.

On a related note, there was an interesting study of wines years ago. The researcher took expensive wine and put some of it in cheap bottles with labels of a much lesser reputation. They then served the good wine in the original bottles alongside the good wine in cheap bottles to a study group who knew wines well and asked for comparisons/comments/ratings. The wine in cheap bottles was invariably rated much worse than the SAME wine in the original good bottles. The wine industry was NOT amused by the study.

prairietapper

04-06-2018, 01:29 PM

High brix was defined at 30-40 Brix in that study.

Over the years we have learned that a great deal of what people "perceive" as flavor comes from two things: their eyes and what they know about the syrup beforehand. If you don't let them see the syrup and don't tell them what it is, they usually have a very hard time. Most people are simply not able to strongly distinguish the multitude of complex flavors in maple, but can merely taste "sweet" and some level of "intensity" of flavor.

It is true that RO will produce lighter syrup as one increases in concentration ABOVE 8-10 Brix. Below 8-10 Brix, RO syrup is actually a tiny bit darker (probably due to heating of the sap/concentrate during the concentration process), but above that there is a gradual progression towards lighter syrup. That will affect flavor to some degree, it is just that it is not enough to be perceptible to most people.

On a related note, there was an interesting study of wines years ago. The researcher took expensive wine and put some of it in cheap bottles with labels of a much lesser reputation. They then served the good wine in the original bottles alongside the good wine in cheap bottles to a study group who knew wines well and asked for comparisons/comments/ratings. The wine in cheap bottles was invariably rated much worse than the SAME wine in the original good bottles. The wine industry was NOT amused by the study.
Same results in coffee tests..
most peoples preconceived perceptions seem to bias flavor tests more than the flavor variations do.

markcasper

04-06-2018, 01:54 PM

Maybe this is not relative to the topic, but one sham that I see going on is many producers using their RO and/or vacuum use as aids in cutting down on global warming and climate change. The other, and less known, is there is a producer not far from me that claims his syrup is the BEST b/c of the special limestone in the soil beneath his trees. He claims it gives a flavor that sets it apart from everyone else's. When in all honesty, any of the syrup of theirs that
I have ever tasted has not been good at all.

ennismaple

04-06-2018, 03:08 PM

Let's keep in mind that RO'd sap typically makes darker syrup than raw sap when it's concentrated to around 8% (see Results on p.13 in the link below) with little statistical difference in chemical composition.

http://www.uvm.edu/~pmrc/Effects%20of%20RO%20on%20syrup%20-%20van%20den%20Berg%202015.pdf

- I was too slow typing.... Dr Tim beat me to it.

DaveB

04-07-2018, 07:58 AM

High brix was defined at 30-40 Brix in that study.

Over the years we have learned that a great deal of what people "perceive" as flavor comes from two things: their eyes and what they know about the syrup beforehand. If you don't let them see the syrup and don't tell them what it is, they usually have a very hard time. Most people are simply not able to strongly distinguish the multitude of complex flavors in maple, but can merely taste "sweet" and some level of "intensity" of flavor.

It is true that RO will produce lighter syrup as one increases in concentration ABOVE 8-10 Brix. Below 8-10 Brix, RO syrup is actually a tiny bit darker (probably due to heating of the sap/concentrate during the concentration process), but above that there is a gradual progression towards lighter syrup. That will affect flavor to some degree, it is just that it is not enough to be perceptible to most people.

On a related note, there was an interesting study of wines years ago. The researcher took expensive wine and put some of it in cheap bottles with labels of a much lesser reputation. They then served the good wine in the original bottles alongside the good wine in cheap bottles to a study group who knew wines well and asked for comparisons/comments/ratings. The wine in cheap bottles was invariably rated much worse than the SAME wine in the original good bottles. The wine industry was NOT amused by the study.

30-40 brix is pretty high. As a meterologist and someone who works in the sciences I appreciate the empirical data.

Speaking of labels, we travel out to visit my brother who lives in Idaho each year and bring enough syrup to sell at the local farmers markets. The love getting syrup direct from a producer and one time there was this guy walking by and he was all excited that there was maple syrup but then saw our sign that we were from Stafford Springs, CT. His comment was "Oh great maple syrup! Oh, it's from Connecticut and not Vermont" and keeps walking by and doesn't buy any. I bring maple syrup 2,000 miles and he's going to be that picky? Really?

Cedar Eater

04-07-2018, 02:03 PM

I plan to do blind side-by-side comparisons of my own RO and non-RO syrup with no more than a few samples at time. The question won't be "Do you like this?" or "Does this taste like maple syrup?". It will be "Which do you like better?" It would not surprise me to get "I like them all."

On a different note, I've heard from two different people this year who got gift syrup from friends that they didn't really like "homemade" maple syrup because it's "bitter" and "harsh". Both cookers used outdoor concrete block evaporators, so I assume the unpleasant taste came from the smoke. Maybe since RO would reduce the time in the smoke it would have a distinct advantage in that case.

Russell Lampron

04-07-2018, 02:55 PM

It is true that RO will produce lighter syrup as one increases in concentration ABOVE 8-10 Brix. Below 8-10 Brix, RO syrup is actually a tiny bit darker (probably due to heating of the sap/concentrate during the concentration process), but above that there is a gradual progression towards lighter syrup.

My own experience was just the opposite. When I only concentrated to 8 Brix my syrup followed the color and flavor profiles of the sap for the time of the season. When I concentrated into the teens, the target number was 18 Brix, the nitre would burn in the flue pan and I made dark syrup from the beginning of the season right to the end. Most of it was grade B (now very dark strong) or darker with light syrup flavor. I built and added an air injection system and now rarely make anything darker than Amber and concentrate to 14 Brix.

Wannabe

04-07-2018, 03:20 PM

So are some of you guys saying that bigger batch boiled syrup in flat pans doesn't taste any different then syrup that's RO'd and spends minimal time in the evaporator?

DrTimPerkins

04-07-2018, 03:49 PM

The question won't be "Do you like this?" or "Does this taste like maple syrup?". It will be "Which do you like better?" It would not surprise me to get "I like them all."

If you are looking for differences, the best approach would be to give each taster 3 samples of syrup to taste (and put them in containers they can't see into). Put the same syrup in 2 of the containers, and a different one in the third. Ask them to tell you which is different (sort of like that Sesame Street game, "One of these things is not like the other", but technically called the "Triangle Test"). If enough people can detect which one is different (compared to pure chance), then there is a difference. Give some people 2 RO syrup and 1 non-RO and some 2 non-RO and 1 RO. If you do this with about 30 people, and 14-15 correctly detect the sample that is different from the other two, then the flavor is different.

DrTimPerkins

04-07-2018, 03:56 PM

So are some of you guys saying that bigger batch boiled syrup in flat pans doesn't taste any different then syrup that's RO'd and spends minimal time in the evaporator?

That was not part of our testing in that particular series of experiments. We simultaneously boiled sap that had not gone through an RO side-by-side with the same batch of sap that went through the RO in the same type of evaporator tuned as closely as possible to each other (a 3' x 10' oil-fired CDL evaporator). In different years, we compared sap vs 8% concentrate (from the original batch of sap), then sap (2%) compared to RO at 8, 12, 15 (again, same starting sap), then RO concentrate at 8 vs 21.5 Brix (same starting sap).

For each of those studies, there were some slight differences in chemistry, but in blind taste-tests, experienced maple people couldn't detect which was which.

http://www.uvm.edu/~pmrc/Effects%20of%20RO%20on%20syrup%20-%20van%20den%20Berg%202015.pdf

It sounds simple put that way, but to do this we had to build a special facility to hold up to 4 evaporators and associated equipment and tanks, purchase 4 evaporators, hire staff to run them, and BUY sap or concentrate to do the experiments. For each year, we did multiple boils to ensure we had good representation of results. In some years we were spending $30k+ buying sap/concentrate because we don't have enough trees to generate that much sap. Then we had to do all the chemical analyses, which in some cases (flavor profiles) is rather costly.

Research isn't cheap.

DrTimPerkins

04-07-2018, 04:04 PM

When I concentrated into the teens, the target number was 18 Brix, the nitre would burn in the flue pan and I made dark syrup from the beginning of the season right to the end.

Burning niter on the pan would definitely cause darkening. It isn't something we looked at in our research, because generally people try to avoid doing that (to avoid the darkening of syrup and burnt-niter off-flavor). However coping with a higher rate of niter deposition is definitely something people have to deal with as they concentrate to higher levels. When you concentrate the sugar, you're also concentrating the minerals, so niter will build up correspondingly faster as your concentration level increases. Had you not burnt the niter, you'd most likely have had lighter syrup.

Cedar Eater

04-07-2018, 06:42 PM

If you are looking for differences, the best approach would be to give each taster 3 samples of syrup to taste (and put them in containers they can't see into). Put the same syrup in 2 of the containers, and a different one in the third. Ask them to tell you which is different (sort of like that Sesame Street game, "One of these things is not like the other", but technically called the "Triangle Test"). If enough people can detect which one is different (compared to pure chance), then there is a difference. Give some people 2 RO syrup and 1 non-RO and some 2 non-RO and 1 RO. If you do this with about 30 people, and 14-15 correctly detect the sample that is different from the other two, then the flavor is different.

I wouldn't be interested in difference because any two batches could be different regardless of whether RO was involved. My interest would be in preference and if preference consistly came up ambiguous or in favor of one or the other that would be data.

ecolbeck

04-07-2018, 08:01 PM

I wouldn't be interested in difference because any two batches could be different regardless of whether RO was involved. My interest would be in preference and if preference consistly came up ambiguous or in favor of one or the other that would be data.

Does preference not indicate a difference?

McKenney Maples

04-07-2018, 08:38 PM

Right I think the point is the samples can't be distinguished from each other in a blind test. If a sample could be singled out potentially the taster could develop an opinion.

Cedar Eater

04-07-2018, 09:16 PM

Does preference not indicate a difference?

I guess, but that's irrelevant. The ability to detect a difference is of no concern to me. Since I am not going to be using the same batch of sap for both cooks, I would expect a difference. Knowing one was detected would tell me nothing interesting. If there's a preference for one or the other, I would want to know which and if there is no preference, I would want to know that.

DrTimPerkins

04-08-2018, 07:39 AM

I guess, but that's irrelevant. The ability to detect a difference is of no concern to me. Since I am not going to be using the same batch of sap for both cooks, I would expect a difference. Knowing one was detected would tell me nothing interesting. If there's a preference for one or the other, I would want to know which and if there is no preference, I would want to know that.

If they express a preference, then obviously they are detecting some difference to base that judgment on. Essentially what you are doing is making what is called a "two-sided comparison" (is there a difference in either direction) into a "one-sided comparison" (is there a positive difference in flavor), which statistically is harder to do and is kind of jumping the gun (can one say there is a preference -- a positive effect -- before one determines whether there is any difference -- any effect).

If you do it that way, there should be several choices: Prefer sample #1, Prefer sample #2, No Preference.

I guess I'd argue that unless you did several samples of RO syrup and several samples of non-RO syrup, that you would end up with results that didn't mean much. You would have to be able to declare that, over many different batches, the RO (or non-RO) syrup was significantly better (more frequently preferred) than the other.

Since you are doing this with different batches of sap/syrup, there really is no way for you to be able to tell what the preference/non-preference is related to. While it might be RO vs non-RO, it might also be the starting sap chemistry or it might be that a squirrel took a bath in one of your sap buckets before crawling out again. There are always some days when the stars seem to align and you make contest-grade syrup....other days you don't. Whether that happens on an RO or non-RO day is not controlled for in your study, and is thus just random noise.

Cedar Eater

04-08-2018, 03:39 PM

If they express a preference, then obviously they are detecting some difference to base that judgment on. Essentially what you are doing is making what is called a "two-sided comparison" (is there a difference in either direction) into a "one-sided comparison" (is there a positive difference in flavor), which statistically is harder to do and is kind of jumping the gun (can one say there is a preference -- a positive effect -- before one determines whether there is any difference -- any effect).

If you do it that way, there should be several choices: Prefer sample #1, Prefer sample #2, No Preference.

I guess I'd argue that unless you did several samples of RO syrup and several samples of non-RO syrup, that you would end up with results that didn't mean much. You would have to be able to declare that, over many different batches, the RO (or non-RO) syrup was significantly better (more frequently preferred) than the other.

Since you are doing this with different batches of sap/syrup, there really is no way for you to be able to tell what the preference/non-preference is related to. While it might be RO vs non-RO, it might also be the starting sap chemistry or it might be that a squirrel took a bath in one of your sap buckets before crawling out again. There are always some days when the stars seem to align and you make contest-grade syrup....other days you don't. Whether that happens on an RO or non-RO day is not controlled for in your study, and is thus just random noise.

I agree that it would take multiple samples for each participant before any meaningful conclusions could be drawn. The meaningful conclusions could be anything from Participant A never picks the RO sample to Participant R never expresses a preference to Participant W always picks the darker sample regardless of processing method. But if none of the participants ever selects RO or if most of the participants express no preference, then I will have data about preferences instead of data about noticing differences. There are two "No Preference" conditions that I would listen for. If someone says, "I can't taste a difference" that would be different from "I can taste a difference but I like them both equally." I could follow up the latter result by asking them to describe the difference they detected.

I suspect that even if the same batch of syrup is split and tested both ways, you would still be dealing with the possibility of difference being introduced as a result of either two different evaporators being used or one 1/2 batch of sap sitting-in-wait while the other was occupying the evaporator. I don't believe a perfectly controlled test scenario exists. Fortunately, by asking about preference, I get right to what is important, whether the RO is introducing an off taste or removing a desirable taste. Enough samples over a long enough period of time would tell me whether the RO is having a negative effect to offset its positives.

DrTimPerkins

04-08-2018, 05:18 PM

I suspect that even if the same batch of syrup is split and tested both ways, you would still be dealing with the possibility of difference being introduced as a result of either two different evaporators being used or one 1/2 batch of sap sitting-in-wait while the other was occupying the evaporator. I don't believe a perfectly controlled test scenario exists.

You are correct in that no study can ever control all variables perfectly...but the goal is to eliminate or reduce them to the extent possible.

In our tests, we use two identical evaporators, tuned by an evaporator technician each year to run identically, and we start both evaporators at the same time and run them both for the same length of time. The sap and concentrate originate from the same batch, so the only difference is that one went through the RO and the other didn't (or one went through to a higher concentration than the other). Since we did this work over a three year time frame, we also got sap/concentrate from three different producers in the area to reduce the influence of one type of RO machine/membrane versus the other.

Scm

04-09-2018, 06:53 AM

..........

DrTimPerkins

04-09-2018, 09:06 AM

Who were the 2(X) people that did the taste testing? We’re they your typical producer, or did you get more professional taste tasters? Also, did they know what the study was before participating?

They were generally maple producers, packers, regulators/inspectors, syrup buyers, Extension people, researchers...so people who know what maple syrup should taste like and off-flavors. The number of tasters varied from mid-20s to mid-40s. There were not any students or people from outside the industry.

Participants didn't know what they were tasting before (or even after) the study. There might have been 1-2 of us who knew the details of the study, but even we didn't have any clue specifically what we were tasting at the time (one person prepared all the samples, but did not participate in the tasting). Syrup was in opaque bottles in a moderately dimly lit room so you couldn't see the color and served at room temperature. Water was provided to rinse between samples. Each person got only a limited number of samples to reduce "taste fatigue." No talking allowed during the tasting.

I can tell you that it was very unsatisfying for many of them to not get filled in after the fact, but that is the best way to do it to avoid any bias.

GeneralStark

04-09-2018, 06:58 PM

Remember, it's not just studies that prove RO has no negative impacts on syrup quality or flavor... show quality syrup right there: http://www.wcax.com/content/news/Supercharged-way-to-get-sugar-from-sap-looking-to-change-maple-industry--478759653.html

Scm

04-10-2018, 08:16 AM

..........

Scm

04-10-2018, 08:32 AM

..........

southfork

04-10-2018, 08:49 AM

Thank you Dr. Perkins for the information and studies.
Race

Clinkis

04-10-2018, 09:17 AM

I made syrup for 25 years without an RO and now that I’m using one I cannot taste or tell any difference and neither do my customers. There are SO many more factors that affect taste, colour and quality besides the use of an RO that to say your syrup is better or premium because you don’t use an RO is ludicrous. Most consumers probably don’t even know what an RO is and therefore probably means nothing too them. I have never once had a customer ask me if I use an RO and when I bring it up I have to explain it to them.

GeneralStark

04-10-2018, 09:24 AM

No one said there were “negative impacts”, Only that there ARE differences in flavor.

Everything a sugarmaker does can affect the flavor of the syrup they produce. If you are marketing your syrup as "ro free" you seem to be implying that using an ro will have negative impacts on syrup flavor by pointing out the fact that you do not use an ro. That's the whole point of this thread....

GeneralStark

04-10-2018, 09:25 AM

But I believe that people that choose to not use RO are shooting for a different market. Not the general maple consumers. More of a premium/specialty market.

There are plenty of people out there using ROs that are going for the premium/specialty food market. Myself included....

Scm

04-10-2018, 10:38 AM

..........

ecolbeck

04-10-2018, 11:41 AM

My label (which restarted your rant) stating that my syrup is RO free, does NOT imply that RO is bad. It simply states the process I used. “Small batch boiled, NO RO, NO Defoamer” All things, someone may be interested in. If I said RO free for better flavor. Then I could understand why you may be offended (not that it matters to me, anyways).

What exactly is RO free syrup supposed to imply (if not that RO is bad)?

ecolbeck

04-10-2018, 11:43 AM

My label (which restarted your rant) stating that my syrup is RO free, does NOT imply that RO is bad. It simply states the process I used. “Small batch boiled, NO RO, NO Defoamer” All things, someone may be interested in. If I said RO free for better flavor. Then I could understand why you may be offended (not that it matters to me, anyways).

You can't "simply state the process" and then claim that it has no meaning.

Scm

04-10-2018, 12:08 PM

..........

Scm

04-10-2018, 12:12 PM

..........

RileySugarbush

04-10-2018, 12:27 PM

My label (which restarted your rant) stating that my syrup is RO free, does NOT imply that RO is bad. It simply states the process I used. “Small batch boiled, NO RO, NO Defoamer” All things, someone may be interested in. If I said RO free for better flavor. Then I could understand why you may be offended (not that it matters to me, anyways).

How would you feel if someone set up next to you at a market with syrup labeled " No plastic tubing used to produce this syrup"?

GeneralStark

04-10-2018, 12:30 PM

I cant wait to get a copper kettle. Your heads will explode with that label.

You brand name could be "Old Smokey" ...

DaveB

04-10-2018, 12:43 PM

It does have meaning. Like I said above. RO changes the flavor. That’s a fact of the study. Page 15. What I didn’t say was that it makes the flavor better. Simply stating that its RO free, does not automatically imply RO is bad.

I've seen you quote that several times but you fail to also highlight the fact that it says "these results indicate that any impact is quite subtle, and beyond what most people are able to perceive." The study clearly states that any changes are not negative and since they are beyond what most people are able to perceive, it seems like a moot point to me.

Further, the paper you are quoting states "because the total quantity of volatile flavor compounds doesn’t always equate with the perceived level of flavor (Belitz et al. 2004), a sensory evaluation experiment was also conducted". As was been shown earlier in this thread, there seemed to be a preference toward RO'd syrup so I don't see why you keep pointing that out. Normally if something is "changed" you would want to point out that it is changed for the negative but since it is not changing for the negative it's confusing as to why that's important.

GeneralStark

04-10-2018, 12:53 PM

The study clearly states that any changes are not negative and since they are beyond what most people are able to perceive

Normally if something is "changed" you would want to point out that it is changed for the negative but since it is not changing for the negative it's confusing as to why that's important.

RO may actually improve flavor. Think of all the crap (mouse turds included) that get filtered out of the sap before it is boiled if you use an ro.

I totally agree with the second statement.

heus

04-10-2018, 01:51 PM

SCM I agree with others that feel that your statement on the label implies that Ro'ed syrup is inferior.

ecolbeck

04-10-2018, 01:54 PM

I cant wait to get a copper kettle. Your heads will explode with that label.

what is this supposed to mean?

ecolbeck

04-10-2018, 01:58 PM

Just because something changes doesn't make that change significant or meaningful. A change in body weight from 175 lbs to 175.0000001 lbs has no practical meaning.

TonyL

04-10-2018, 02:13 PM

Before we installed tubing, we promoted our syrup as being collected in buckets, made in small 1-2 gallon batches in a pan over a wood fire, cooked for hours at a time. In the same fashion our grandparents made syrup. And that was absolutely true. Now we use tubing, and will probably go with an RO next season. We no longer make that statement. It has nothing to do with taste, and everything to do with perception. The typical, romanticized syrup scene on labels and postcards has buckets on trees, horses pulling a sled, and/or wood stacked up against the sugarhouse. Their is a market, a premium market in many cases, for product made with nostalgia.

Never going to be a big operation doing it that way, but I still wonder if our move away from buckets and towards an RO, has caused us to lose something along the way. We’ll see I suppose.

prairietapper

04-10-2018, 02:49 PM

SCM I agree with others that feel that your statement on the label implies that Ro'ed syrup is inferior.
To me it just means the process is not coal fired via the grid. LOL

prairietapper

04-10-2018, 02:54 PM

I know this is an aside to the original question but I have to wonder..
How many of you that feel RO makes a lower quality of syrup based that opinion on some trials with an early hobby RO ?
and did you run it many passes to get high Brix when doing it?

Scm

04-10-2018, 02:55 PM

..........

Scm

04-10-2018, 03:09 PM

..........

DrTimPerkins

04-10-2018, 03:18 PM

... but I still wonder if our move away from buckets and towards an RO, has caused us to lose something along the way. We’ll see I suppose.

If anything, it lost you a great deal of time sitting by the evaporator and NOT sleeping. It also cost you a good deal of time cutting firewood. It may well have also lost you a good deal of lead in your diet.

Not many people who go from buckets to tubing go back. Even fewer ever go back to boiling raw sap after using an RO.

3GoatHill

04-10-2018, 04:52 PM

It does have meaning. Like I said above. RO changes the flavor. That’s a fact of the study. Page 15. What I didn’t say was that it makes the flavor better. Simply stating that its RO free, does not automatically imply RO is bad.

But to the general public, it DOES imply that it's bad. The general public is uneducated and when they see a label that says GMO free or BPA free or RO free it insinuates that those things are bad, otherwise the producer wouldn't have gone through the trouble of putting it on the label.

TonyL

04-10-2018, 07:59 PM

If anything, it lost you a great deal of time sitting by the evaporator and NOT sleeping. It also cost you a good deal of time cutting firewood. It may well have also lost you a good deal of lead in your diet.

Not many people who go from buckets to tubing go back. Even fewer ever go back to boiling raw sap after using an RO.

I doubt our aluminum buckets contributed much by way of lead to our diets, but I get your point. The point I'm after is just what you mentioned, Dr. Perkins: Time. I have a saying, and while it's not that great of a saying, I think it illustrates my take on a great many things..."Anyone can write a check for something, and call it theirs. But to really appreciate the ownership, you need to sweat, cry, and bleed over it before you can rightfully call it your own."

Not for one second am I implying that the big producers haven't sweated or bled to get where they are now. I know better. But I ask myself how many would continue to produce syrup with RO's, tubing, vacuum pumps, giant continuous evaporators, and several hundred or even several thousand taps, if they lost money every year doing so? We made almost 17 gallons this year. Kept some, gave some away, and sold all the rest for $1 an ounce. And lost money doing so, if you count the time spent for anything. We've lost money every year so far, and we'll continue to lose money. Still going to make and sell syrup. Because it isn't about how many drops of sap we can wring from the trees, or how efficient our evap. runs, or how much we can reduce boil times by using an RO. It's about the blood, sweat, and tears. We make delicious syrup if our customers are to be believed, but that's not why they purchase from us....they want our product because there's something besides great tasting syrup in the bottle. I believe it's the flavor of traditional, bygone era family sugaring that drives the purchase. I believe that those who question RO and tubing use, glimpse this aspect also. Believe it or not, a market exists for it, and it can be premium. Enough of a market to make the effort involving several hundred taps, viable? I doubt it, but it's there nonetheless.

Science wants to quantify everything, and I get that and appreciate it. Scientists are taught to be factual, analytical, and to ignore emotion to the best of their abilities. But in this case, and in my opinion only, there's something else at work here that science has not, and probably can not, factor in.

Scm

04-10-2018, 10:16 PM

..........

Scm

04-10-2018, 10:21 PM

..........

ecolbeck

04-11-2018, 05:25 AM

The general public by far prefer the fake stuff over the real stuff. BUt me calling my stuff RO free is somehow a threat to their (30%) “empire”. BUt whatever, RO changes the flavor. MOST people wont care. Some people may find that a negative. Those are the people I want to sell to. (If I ever actually sell). Why is there no issue with calling your syrup “Organic”. That would imply nonorganic syrup is “bad” too. What about “New Hampshire Maple syrup” does that mean Vermont maple syprup is inferior too?

Some call it a waste of time. Some call it dedication........

Don’t take the bait folks. Find something better to do with your life than argue in circles with this guy. Go hug your kids and your spouse and pet the dog.

TonyL

04-11-2018, 05:39 AM

Aluminum increases the risk of Alzheimer’s. But thats for another forum.

The Alzheimer’s Association disagrees with your statement, but you’re correct, that’s a topic for another forum.

skixcvt

04-11-2018, 07:35 AM

I’d say that enough research has been done to make this a dumb argument. Make a good product. Do what you’ve got to do to sell your product, but don’t trash talk your neighbors product based only on their production techniques. If your syrup is consistently better it will sell itself.

Seems to me that any marketing benefit regarding flavor could easily be offset by the marketing benefit regarding reduced energy use.

DrTimPerkins

04-11-2018, 08:12 AM

Science wants to quantify everything, and I get that and appreciate it. Scientists are taught to be factual, analytical, and to ignore emotion to the best of their abilities. But in this case, and in my opinion only, there's something else at work here that science has not, and probably can not, factor in.

I disagree with the point that science could not address this question very adequately. The bigger issue is that there is no reason to do so, and in particular, there would be no support (in terms of maple industry demand or funding) for such a study. Your post comes down to the difference in evidence versus belief/emotion. If people want to believe something strongly enough, they will do so in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary. I really don't see that as a shortcoming of science.

On the other hand, if you can come up with $150k to do the study, I'd be willing to consider it. Personally however, I think it would be a waste of time and resources.

Sugarmaker

04-11-2018, 08:20 AM

Read through most of this. Dr Tim and company have done the best job to date of supplying the industry with unbiased results regarding maple syrup flavors from several current manufacturing processes. If folks ask me in the sugarhouse I tell them the reasons we are not using a R.O. at this time and it does not have anything to do with flavor. The R.O. is the workhorse of the maple industry it is not going away! If it made bad tasting syrup producers would not use it! Remember we are the ones that are the most picky about syrup flavors, and we should be, that's what we are marketing and selling. I am glad we have good production methods to make a great natural , highly marketable, product! Remember we have progressed from using hot rocks in wooden troughs! Humm wonder what the flavor was like?:)
Regards,
Chris

GeneralStark

04-11-2018, 08:38 AM

Remember we are the ones that are the most picky about syrup flavors, and we should be, that's what we are marketing and selling. I am glad we have good production methods to make a great natural , highly marketable, product! Remember we have progressed from using hot rocks in wooden troughs! Humm wonder what the flavor was like?:)
Regards,
Chris

Great points Chris, though I may question that "we" have progressed from using hot rocks in a wooden trough, unless you are Native American. Those of us that are descendants of European settlers were the first to improve upon the Native's techniques. We certainly have come a far way...

I may also question that all producers are equally as "picky" regarding syrup flavor. As is indicated by comments in the new off flavor thread, it seems that some may just want to fill barrels and send them to the packer to deal with....

TonyL

04-11-2018, 08:45 AM

I disagree with the point that science could not address this question very adequately. The bigger issue is that there is no reason to do so, and in particular, there would be no support (in terms of maple industry demand or funding) for such a study. Your post comes down to the difference in evidence versus belief/emotion. If people want to believe something strongly enough, they will do so in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary. I really don't see that as a shortcoming of science.

On the other hand, if you can come up with $150k to do the study, I'd be willing to consider it. Personally however, I think it would be a waste of time and resources.

Dr Perkins, no disrespect intended by my previous comments, nor those I am about to make. However you refer to the maple industry, and I think therein lies a principle difference in our philosophies. To me, and my very small customer base, it isn’t about an industry, or making money, or even whether or not a flavor difference exists between RO and non RO syrup. It’s about a comfort food.... one that, for whatever reason, invokes warm feelings of nostalgia for bygone days and practices. THAT’S the market I spoke of earlier. This particular, tiny market, wants great tasting syrup of course, but they also want product made in the same fashion that they envision it made decades ago. Proving to these folks that there is no difference in taste, doesn’t satisfy their taste for nostalgia.

You speak in terms of money spent for research, testing, etc. And I don’t doubt a single word you say, or a single study you cite. But if nostalgia were not a force to be reckoned with, the Cracker Barrel restaurant chain would disappear, would it not? That’s the element that science struggles to fit into a tidy box, in my opinion.

McKenney Maples

04-11-2018, 09:06 AM

I think there are a few different discussions here. In regards to the RO having some effect on flavor I have to say Dr.Tim did a very impressive study that pretty much defines there is no detectable difference. However for someone to say the syrup they make that isn’t RO’d sap before boiling tastes different because it wasn’t RO’d makes no sense to me. How can that be determined to be the root cause of the flavor difference? Syrup off a flat pan on an open fire that started out as sap sitting around all week isn’t going to taste like syrup off an enclosed wood fired evaporator from sap collected fresh that day, RO or not. Personally when someone tells me I have the best syrup after a spoon full I figure they just haven’t tasted that much syrup or they’re just being polite. The way I see it there is a range for acceptable flavor and everyone’s preference is a little different. That said I don’t believe an RO effects what that range is or how it is perceived by customers. There are just way too many other variables for me.

McKenney Maples

04-11-2018, 09:09 AM

Dr Perkins, no disrespect intended by my previous comments, nor those I am about to make. However you refer to the maple industry, and I think therein lies a principle difference in our philosophies. To me, and my very small customer base, it isn’t about an industry, or making money, or even whether or not a flavor difference exists between RO and non RO syrup. It’s about a comfort food.... one that, for whatever reason, invokes warm feelings of nostalgia for bygone days and practices. THAT’S the market I spoke of earlier. This particular, tiny market, wants great tasting syrup of course, but they also want product made in the same fashion that they envision it made decades ago. Proving to these folks that there is no difference in taste, doesn’t satisfy their taste for nostalgia.

You speak in terms of money spent for research, testing, etc. And I don’t doubt a single word you say, or a single study you cite. But if nostalgia were not a force to be reckoned with, the Cracker Barrel restaurant chain would disappear, would it not? That’s the element that science struggles to fit into a tidy box, in my opinion.

It’s a means to market your syrup and build a customer base/brand. Like I said there’s a couple discussion going on here.

DaveB

04-11-2018, 09:48 AM

RO simply removes pure water from sap leaving a higher concentration of maple sugar. If someone wants to believe that there is a detectable difference between sap that has had some water removed from it and sap collected straight from the tree, I wonder what they think when they get 6% sap from one tree and 1.5% from another. Nature has concentrated the sugar content for them. Also, do they remove ice from buckets or boil that too? Do they pre-heat the sap before adding it to the evaporator? Both of those will concentrate the sap as well. If concentrating sugar affects the flavor that much, what do those producers do to not have concentrated sap?

I get that a lot of people buy syrup based on the nostalgia of how they perceive how maple syrup is made. Just read this story (https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/vermonts-maple-syrup-business-is-booming-thanks-to-technology-and-changing-tastes/2018/04/06/852746c2-3918-11e8-8fd2-49fe3c675a89_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3b3f3ea08d1b) from the Washington Post yesterday. There's a lot of markets outside of maple syrup based on what people think that are are far from reality. I think the difference here is that we each go after a niche be that the energy efficient, modern or more traditional. It doesn't make one product superior. As has been shown there really is no real difference save for what people believe and you can't change that.

Cedar Eater

04-11-2018, 02:15 PM

As with anything that touches the sap, we have to hope that RO technology doesn't add something undesirable. That's been true of copper, plastic, aluminum, brass, cast iron, steel, tin, lead, zinc, stainless steel, defoamers, filters, filtering aids, and even wood. With RO equipment, we also have to hope that it doesn't extract something desirable. Since RO reduces the time that the sugars and other components of sap are exposed to heat, it seems like a legitimate thing to study, especially since we know that if we evaporate sap via vacuum alone, it doesn't produce good syrup. At least some heat is essential. The question is a matter of how much and at what point would RO shorten the boil time enough to bring the heat input below the amount required for enough.

DrTimPerkins

04-11-2018, 02:48 PM

With RO equipment, we also have to hope that it doesn't extract something desirable.

There is no need to hope. It doesn't. The science on that (in maple) has been quite clear for a very long time. Furthermore, the original research was done with true RO machines, not the ultrafiltration devices (commonly referred to as RO) that most people use now, which operate under far less pressure with far better membranes than when that work was done.

Since RO reduces the time that the sugars and other components of sap are exposed to heat, it seems like a legitimate thing to study, especially since we know that if we evaporate sap via vacuum alone, it doesn't produce good syrup.

Concentration/evaporation with vacuum is a totally different thing and a ridiculous notion to bring to this conversation. It is apples and oranges, or a more appropriate analogy to your example, bananas and monkeys. Evaporation by vacuum (low pressure level) and by heat are TOTALLY different. While the sugar beet/sugarcane industry use vacuum evaporation technology (with some heat), the maple industry doesn't. The beet/cane industry doesn't want color development in their product.

At least some heat is essential.

Yes, heat is necessary to develop color and flavor. It is not necessary to evaporate, but introducing that variable into this conversation adds nothing but confusion.

The question is a matter of how much...

But who decides what the target flavor is, or what is too little or too much? Some people like light maple flavors, some like strong maple flavors. A bulk producer might just as easily say that their customer (the bulk buyer) desires the lightest syrup possible, and pays more for it, so that is what I do. Their approach is just as legitimate as someone who wants to make strong tasting dark syrup.

..and at what point would RO shorten the boil time enough to bring the heat input below the amount required for enough.

Again, what is "enough"? It actually takes rather little boiling time for caramelization (color/flavor development) to occur. What is more critical is the temperature at which the target sugars caramelize at. Boiling for even a relatively short amount of time will caramelize invert sugars (one the critical activation energy--temperature level is achieved, sugars will caramelize). Continued boiling will darken the syrup further, but that is more due to overheating sugars than not to cooking enough. It is two different (but related) processes.

A lot of the same processes happen in toasting of bread (or coffee, or anything with much carbohydrate). There is a fine line between hot bread and toast. Before you hit that line you just have hot/dry bread. Once you hit it, you have toast. After that, you simply are charring carbohydrates, and you can surely get the toast darker. That doesn't mean it is better, and some people like their bread lightly toasted while other like it black. But regardless, the conversion from bread to toast is very distinct. Syrup is very similar, but you can't see it happening as well since it happens right at the interface of the pan and liquid and is moving constantly and very fast.

TonyL

04-11-2018, 02:50 PM

DaveB

04-11-2018, 03:04 PM

Say I have 200 gallons of sap at 2% and I divide that in half. 100 gallons I boil as usual, batch boil flat pan. I reduce it down to 3 gallons, which I finish on propane. The other 100 gallons I run through my RO and take it to 4%, which leaves me only 50 gallons to boil in the same fashion. I reduce it down to 3 gallons also, then finish on propane.

So the 100 gallons I ran through the RO, spent a lot less time on the fire. Wouldn’t that affect the flavor of the finished syrup somehow, linked indirectly to running it through the RO first? Not arguing, I’m just trying to understand.

I thought the good doctor did a great job explaining that in the post above yours:

"Again, what is "enough"? It actually takes rather little boiling time for caramelization (color/flavor development) to occur. What is more critical is the temperature at which the target sugars caramelize at. Boiling for even a relatively short amount of time will caramelize invert sugars (one the critical activation energy--temperature level is achieved, sugars will caramelize). Continued boiling will darken the syrup further, but that is more due to overheating sugars than not to cooking enough. It is two different (but related) processes.

A lot of the same processes happen in toasting of bread (or coffee, or anything with much carbohydrate). There is a fine line between hot bread and toast. Before you hit that line you just have hot/dry bread. Once you hit it, you have toast. After that, you simply are charring carbohydrates, and you can surely get the toast darker. That doesn't mean it is better, and some people like their bread lightly toasted while other like it black. But regardless, the conversion from bread to toast is very distinct. Syrup is very similar, but you can't see it happening as well since it happens right at the interface of the pan and liquid and is moving constantly and very fast."

Yes there are subtle differences but my understanding is that it doesn't take much to develop that flavor. Like he says, the longer it is in contact with heat the more that will develop. Different people like different flavors and different buyers will buy what they want. It still doesn't mean that any one is "better" than another.

DrTimPerkins

04-11-2018, 03:06 PM

So the 100 gallons I ran through the RO, spent a lot less time on the fire. Wouldn’t that affect the flavor of the finished syrup somehow, linked indirectly to running it through the RO first?

If you look at it from the standpoint of the sap chemistry, then you have it totally backward. It is actually more appropriate to say that cooking it for a long time is damaging the inherent nature of the sugars in the sap.

Caramelization of sugars occurs when the critical activation energy is reached based upon the temperature of the solution, not on the length of time it is boiled. AFTER that point, you might make darker syrup if you keep boiling it longer, but that is only because you are charring niter and sugars in the solution. The base chemistry of the solution dictates the color/flavor of the product. If you continue to process (boil) longer, it will darken the product, but that is your choice of processing dictating that result, and not the inherent property of the sap causing it. Rather than "not cooking enough", it is "cooking too much" which causes the darker color and stronger flavor.

The analogy would be toast (my previous post). Another would be steak. Whether you like your steak rare or well-done dictates how much you cook it. Cooking it beyond rare doesn't necessarily make it "better", but it does make it different.

And in case anyone is paying attention....I like my syrup AR, my toast light, and my steak medium-rare. Marshmallows over the campfire I prefer charred black. If you're still paying attention....I like my gin & tonic cold, in a glass, with ice, twist of lime. :D

johnallin

04-11-2018, 03:35 PM

And in case anyone is paying attention....I like my syrup AR, my toast light, and my steak medium-rare. Marshmallows over the campfire I prefer charred black. If you're still paying attention....I like my gin & tonic cold, in a glass, with ice, twist of lime. :D

OK let's see if I got this right..you like your syrup light, your toast dark, your steak charred black and your marshmallows medium rare.

RileySugarbush

04-11-2018, 04:17 PM

..............I like my gin & tonic cold, in a glass, with ice, twist of lime. :D

.......and probably plentiful, after putting up with the repetitive questions you get from all of us!

Thanks for your expertise and patience!

TonyL

04-11-2018, 04:32 PM

Okay, what my feeble brain thinks it understands:

1) There is an optimum temp....”critical activation energy”
2) Cooking syrup beyond this point might darken it due to charring of the sugars and niter.
3) Cooking longer leads to darker color and stronger flavor.
4) My 2x3 flat pan takes approx 12 hours to turn 100 gallons into 3 gallons of concentrate.
5) Since I batch boil, some of that 100 gallons has been on the fire for 12 hours.
6) is it safe to assume that after 12 hours, I’m probably over processing and burning niter and sugar?

So, if I RO that 100 gallons down to 50 gallons, then my sap is on the fire for a maximum of 6 hours. If more time on the fire leads to darker color and stronger taste, then shouldn’t less time on the fire lead to lighter color and milder taste, everything else being equal, with the exception of the RO?

I’m not saying that either way is better, I’m simply struggling with the idea that MY operation in the configuration I’ve described, won’t make different syrup with an RO. Now a continuous evaporater, I see where the difference could be minimal. But a batch boil? Is it not a case of less time over the heat translating to less scorched niter and sugar??

3GoatHill

04-11-2018, 05:10 PM

Don’t take the bait folks. Find something better to do with your life than argue in circles with this guy. Go hug your kids and your spouse and pet the dog.

Agreed. It seems like he's only on here to argue.

Bruce L

04-11-2018, 05:53 PM

Sure a lot of reading on here for this thread,surprised it hasn't been closed by moderators yet. My take on the whole discussion----1-- NO two syrups are the same, 2-- NO two syrups are the same. I have judged and tasted syrup from many different places,Provinces and States. I have tasted really good R O syrup,some decent R O syrup ,and some really bad tasteless R O syrup. I have tasted really good syrup from traditional evaporators,some decent syrup from traditional evaporators,and some really bad syrup from traditional evaporators. Likewise,to save space and typing,the same can be said for small backyard flat pan syrup.Does one reign supreme over the others? No ,there are a lot of other factors that weigh in.Even the same bush with same evaporator can have syrup come out tasting totally different with a different boiler. My wife will spell me off for short periods while I check releaser or prime a sap pump,she does not push the rig as hard as I do as she is nervous about burning something up,so if she were to boil very long I am sure there would be a subtle difference in flavour to the syrup.I have tasted syrup from New York State( only picking New York guys as it is the closest State to me ) and I did not care for the flavour of it at all. Is that to say there is not excellent syrup in New York State? Quite the opposite,just happened to be the syrup that I tried was not desirable. I don't believe you can group all R O'd syrup in the same class ,or pipeline syrup,flat pan etc. It is amazing now with social networking sites and forums like this where one can bash someone else's syrup because they do it differently from their own operation from the safety of their keyboard screen,yet in person might tend to be a little more silent in downgrading a competitors syrup. I have had neighbours in the past claim everything bad they possibly could about our syrup,yet we are still in business outselling them, I am not getting into that foray,let them hang themselves with their lies to consumers. In closing I will say,another thread has started about R O,I do not have one,nor plan to ever get one.I have a sugarhouse that I am proud of built in 1892, no room or power for an RO,and really no need as I only boil 2-3 hours per day with the setup that we have. As with most people,I am proud of our syrup,and nothing would get your back up more than someone telling you that you need to improve with an RO,filter press,U V lights,plastic tubing,plastic buckets and so on,they would basically be telling you that your syrup isn't up to par unless you have the same setup that they do,and nothing could be further from the truth . Much the same as I heard on the news today where Roseanne Barr was bashing Reba Macintire about a part she claims she would have been better at,yet Reba didn't respond,simply look where it's coming from. If you have to downgrade someone else to raise yourself up,someday you will come crashing down hard

wnybassman

04-11-2018, 06:21 PM

Russell Lampron

04-11-2018, 06:44 PM

And in case anyone is paying attention....I like my syrup AR, my toast light, and my steak medium-rare. Marshmallows over the campfire I prefer charred black. If you're still paying attention....I like my gin & tonic cold, in a glass, with ice, twist of lime. :D

You and I agree on the AR syrup and the medium-rare steak. I like my toast brown and the marshmallows tan on the outside and nice and soft in the middle.

My beverage of choice is Blue Moon out of a keg in a frosted mug! You can give the orange slice to my wife!

Russell Lampron

04-11-2018, 06:56 PM

I bought my RO mid season this year, can you guess when? lol

18526

How did the flavor of your syrup compare after the addition of the RO? Was there any noticeable difference? I ask because I have been using an RO for so long that I don't remember if there was a difference in the flavor of mine at the time. When I added the RO it was at the beginning of the season so I couldn't compare before and after samples.

Sunday Rock Maple

04-11-2018, 06:58 PM

I'm not in the rare steak camp, rather have them as often as possible........

Cedar Eater

04-11-2018, 11:01 PM

There is no need to hope. It doesn't. The science on that (in maple) has been quite clear for a very long time. Furthermore, the original research was done with true RO machines, not the ultrafiltration devices (commonly referred to as RO) that most people use now, which operate under far less pressure with far better membranes than when that work was done.

Yes, there is need to hope, because some of the mineral content of the sap remains in the membranes. The components that make maple syrup something other than just caramelized sugars and water get partially extracted by the membrane and that might affect the flavor of the finished product. Or it might just reduce niter formation or have some other positive effect. Fortunately, it doesn't seem to noticeably diminish anything desirable in the flavor at the levels we concentrate to, but because it happens it may eventually produce a noticeable effect at some level of concentration that becomes possible by RO eventually.

Concentration/evaporation with vacuum is a totally different thing and a ridiculous notion to bring to this conversation.

Why is it ridiculous to point out that at the one extreme (no boiling) we get an unaccepatable result and at the other extreme (all boiling) we get the standard that syrup is traditionally measured by? RO falls between the results attainable by room temperature evaporation/concentration (whether by vacuum or by air drying) and evaporation/concentration by boiling. That was my point. Some amount of "cooking" is required before we would call it acceptable.

Yes, heat is necessary to develop color and flavor. It is not necessary to evaporate, but introducing that variable into this conversation adds nothing but confusion.

No claim was made that heat was necessary for either evaporation or concentration. Only that it was necessary for producing an acceptable product.

But who decides what the target flavor is, or what is too little or too much?

The consumer.

Again, what is "enough"?

Whatever the consumer decides is "enough". The industry may have some ability to sway the perception of "good enough" over a long enough period of time, but as with wine or coffee or coca cola or really anything where people claim to become connoisseurs there will be those who will object to the shift away from their expectations.

It actually takes rather little boiling time for caramelization (color/flavor development) to occur. What is more critical is the temperature at which the target sugars caramelize at. Boiling for even a relatively short amount of time will caramelize invert sugars (one the critical activation energy--temperature level is achieved, sugars will caramelize). Continued boiling will darken the syrup further, but that is more due to overheating sugars than not to cooking enough. It is two different (but related) processes.

A lot of the same processes happen in toasting of bread (or coffee, or anything with much carbohydrate). There is a fine line between hot bread and toast. Before you hit that line you just have hot/dry bread. Once you hit it, you have toast. After that, you simply are charring carbohydrates, and you can surely get the toast darker. That doesn't mean it is better, and some people like their bread lightly toasted while other like it black. But regardless, the conversion from bread to toast is very distinct. Syrup is very similar, but you can't see it happening as well since it happens right at the interface of the pan and liquid and is moving constantly and very fast.

The issue is that somewhere there is a line that RO could cross. Maybe that line hasn't yet been crossed with today's technology (or maybe we are already there with high-brix), but when it is crossed, the syrup will become noticeably more like uncooked or maybe just undercooked syrup. Maybe it will be not enough color development or more likely it will just be a wimpy flavor relying too much on sweetness. The energy saving advantages of more RO over evaporation/concentration by heat will not be compelling for those who object to that kind of syrup.

ecolbeck

04-12-2018, 04:46 AM

Yes, there is need to hope, because some of the mineral content of the sap remains in the membranes. The components that make maple syrup something other than just caramelized sugars and water get partially extracted by the membrane and that might affect the flavor of the finished product.

Sap that has been through an RO still has PLENTY of minerals in it. Yes some may get hung up in the membrane but its many orders of magnitude smaller than what passes through.

Why is it ridiculous to point out that at the one extreme (no boiling) we get an unaccepatable result and at the other extreme (all boiling) we get the standard that syrup is traditionally measured by? RO falls between the results attainable by room temperature evaporation/concentration (whether by vacuum or by air drying) and evaporation/concentration by boiling. That was my point. Some amount of "cooking" is required before we would call it acceptable.

Calling these things extremes of the same spectrum is fallacious. There is no line of continuity between the use of RO and concentration by vacuum.

The issue is that somewhere there is a line that RO could cross. Maybe that line hasn't yet been crossed with today's technology (or maybe we are already there with high-brix), but when it is crossed, the syrup will become noticeably more like uncooked or maybe just undercooked syrup.

Now that you've reduced the issue to something completely hypothetical, perhaps we can move on to other aspects of this discussion.

eagle lake sugar

04-12-2018, 07:35 AM

Most customers I've talked to prefer their syrup from a sealed, sanitary pipeline over buckets full of sap with bugs and rodent residue. Even eco nuts can see the advantage of an r/o, resulting in consuming less fuel in the evaporation process as well. If I find someone who wants syrup only from hand whittled wooden spiles and buckets gathered by horse drawn sleigh, I send them to the Amish community nearby.

DrTimPerkins

04-12-2018, 08:04 AM

Yes, there is need to hope, because some of the mineral content of the sap remains in the membranes....blah, blah, blah

When you decide to have a reasonable conversation, let me know, otherwise I'm done beating my head against this particular wall. Understand that this doesn't mean I agree with most anything you've said, just that when people seem to cling to their own beliefs rather than in established facts, there is no point trying to educate them further.

Signing off this thread.

GeneralStark

04-12-2018, 08:33 AM

To me, and my very small customer base, it isn’t about an industry, or making money, or even whether or not a flavor difference exists between RO and non RO syrup. It’s about a comfort food.... one that, for whatever reason, invokes warm feelings of nostalgia for bygone days and practices. THAT’S the market I spoke of earlier. This particular, tiny market, wants great tasting syrup of course, but they also want product made in the same fashion that they envision it made decades ago. Proving to these folks that there is no difference in taste, doesn’t satisfy their taste for nostalgia.

You speak in terms of money spent for research, testing, etc. And I don’t doubt a single word you say, or a single study you cite. But if nostalgia were not a force to be reckoned with, the Cracker Barrel restaurant chain would disappear, would it not? That’s the element that science struggles to fit into a tidy box, in my opinion.

I also think there are two discussions here, one about the technical aspects of the RO and potential impacts to syrup flavor, and marketing yourself as RO free. I personally don't need to discuss the technical aspects based on my own experience making syrup with and without an RO, the related science, and the fact that RO is winning lots of awards at fairs.

But, the marketing aspect of this is why I started this whole thread, and then revived it. If you want to tell your customers that your syrup is better because you didn't use an ro, or that someone else's is inferior because they did, I guess that is your right. I don't get it...

TonyL, you bring up an interesting point related to nostalgia, and the attempt to market this. I guess some people do long for bygone days and bristle at all the change they see in the world around them. I see it with customers at our open houses and occasionally at farmer's markets. People that remember how it was done when they were kids, and want the same experience today. But is that a reasonable expectation?

My response to that is that change is the only constant. Most people also get the idea of innovation and adaptability. For me, this is part of the idea of nostalgia. That past sugarmakers changed their methods as new technologies and advancements were made. Nobody I know is still willingly boiling on a kettle over an open fire year after year. Sure some do this, but most adapt and improve as they realize this is not the best method for making good quality syrup.

I often see the most nostalgia when someone tries a sample of our maple candy. It reminds them of being a child....

So my question is this. Do the production methods really matter all that much or is it more about the end product?

skixcvt

04-12-2018, 08:42 AM

The issue is that somewhere there is a line that RO could cross. Maybe that line hasn't yet been crossed with today's technology (or maybe we are already there with high-brix), but when it is crossed, the syrup will become noticeably more like uncooked or maybe just undercooked syrup. Maybe it will be not enough color development or moreover likely it will just be a wimpy flavor relying too much on sweetness. The energy saving advantages of more RO over evaporation/concentration by heat will not be compelling for those who object to that kind of syrup.

I don’t see this as an issue, because we will always have old fashioned producers who don’t use RO for whatever reason (including the folks at UVM who will boil raw sap to compare with new higher Brix methods!

It’s not like we’re going to forget what old fashioned syrup tastes like. Because it’s still being made!

GeneralStark

04-12-2018, 08:46 AM

It’s not like we’re going to forget what old fashioned syrup tastes like.

But how do we know what "old fashioned" syrup tastes like? And what does that even mean?

TonyL

04-12-2018, 09:41 AM

I also think there are two discussions here, one about the technical aspects of the RO and potential impacts to syrup flavor, and marketing yourself as RO free. I personally don't need to discuss the technical aspects based on my own experience making syrup with and without an RO, the related science, and the fact that RO is winning lots of awards at fairs.

But, the marketing aspect of this is why I started this whole thread, and then revived it. If you want to tell your customers that your syrup is better because you didn't use an ro, or that someone else's is inferior because they did, I guess that is your right. I don't get it...

TonyL, you bring up an interesting point related to nostalgia, and the attempt to market this. I guess some people do long for bygone days and bristle at all the change they see in the world around them. I see it with customers at our open houses and occasionally at farmer's markets. People that remember how it was done when they were kids, and want the same experience today. But is that a reasonable expectation?

My response to that is that change is the only constant. Most people also get the idea of innovation and adaptability. For me, this is part of the idea of nostalgia. That past sugarmakers changed their methods as new technologies and advancements were made. Nobody I know is still willingly boiling on a kettle over an open fire year after year. Sure some do this, but most adapt and improve as they realize this is not the best method for making good quality syrup.

I often see the most nostalgia when someone tries a sample of our maple candy. It reminds them of being a child....

So my question is this. Do the production methods really matter all that much or is it more about the end product?

I don’t know how reasonable an expectation it is, but there is absolutely a segment of the population looking for it. I also wonder if geography plays a role... here in the Midwest, ( at least in my area), making syrup isn’t all that common. Certainly not how it used to be, decades ago. We have had many older folks tell us, “ I remember how much work it was to make syrup...you need to charge more!” We get $12 for 12 ounces in glass, and will go to $15 next year. And while we don’t sell a lot, or do it to make a profit, we do sell all we have available every year. Matter of fact, if your name isn’t on the list for next year by now, you might not get any.

It’s definitely a small, niche market, but it’s there.

Cedar Eater

04-12-2018, 09:50 AM

Calling these things extremes of the same spectrum is fallacious. There is no line of continuity between the use of RO and concentration by vacuum.

So if RO to 66.9 brix was possible, you think the result wouldn't be similar to concentration by vacuum to 66.9 brix?

ecolbeck

04-12-2018, 09:59 AM

So if RO to 66.9 brix was possible, you think the result wouldn't be similar to concentration by vacuum to 66.9 brix?

Your question, in and of itself, proves my point

skixcvt

04-12-2018, 10:01 AM

But how do we know what "old fashioned" syrup tastes like? And what does that even mean?

I should have said “ Non-RO syrup”. That’s what I meant.

Cedar Eater

04-12-2018, 10:11 AM

I don’t see this as an issue, because we will always have old fashioned producers who don’t use RO for whatever reason (including the folks at UVM who will boil raw sap to compare with new higher Brix methods!

It’s not like we’re going to forget what old fashioned syrup tastes like. Because it’s still being made!

Yes, assuming that we don't at some point get ridiculously draconian energy use restrictions or tree protectionism or some other legal interference, we will always have old fashioned producers. Those of us who produce will continue to know what boiling sap straight from the trees produces. But that brings us back to the topic of the thread, marketing the old fashioned to the nostalgic consumer or to the elitist consumer or to the discerning consumer or to whatever consumers can be influenced by old fashioned labels and old fashioned methods of production. Maybe it will be like "farm fresh" eggs vs. "factory" eggs.

DaveB

04-12-2018, 10:12 AM

I should have said “ Non-RO syrup”. That’s what I meant.

There's plenty of examples of non-ro syrup and they were compared side by side and there is no discernible difference. There might be tiny differences but that happens in day to day or producer to producer anyway. It's all about the end product and any difference between ro'd and non-ro'd products is indiscernible. In fact, as as been pointed out, there was a slight preference toward the ro'd syrup in blind taste tests.

Cedar Eater

04-12-2018, 10:12 AM

Your question, in and of itself, proves my point

So, no answer then?

Sugarmaker

04-12-2018, 10:37 AM

Great points Chris, though I may question that "we" have progressed from using hot rocks in a wooden trough, unless you are Native American. Those of us that are descendants of European settlers were the first to improve upon the Native's techniques. We certainly have come a far way...

I may also question that all producers are equally as "picky" regarding syrup flavor. As is indicated by comments in the new off flavor thread, it seems that some may just want to fill barrels and send them to the packer to deal with....

Both points taken and understood. I dont have a lot of Native American left in me and I dont put any syrup in barrels. So flavor is still important and monitored in our sugarhouse. It would be, even if we had a R.O. We are marketing and selling our syrup and value added products as more high end foodie items, or gourmet foods, in today's world. That does not mean everyone is doing the same. We are small. We dont have to all be the same, would be pretty dull. I sometimes refer to the majority of new customers today as having a Walmart mentality towards the maple process and the product. We try to change that and give them some education on grades, flavors and process for making on of the few natural products available. They listen and learn. they try it and if they like it they buy it.
Sorry for rambling.
Regards,
Chris

Cedar Eater

04-12-2018, 10:58 AM

When you decide to have a reasonable conversation, let me know, otherwise I'm done beating my head against this particular wall. Understand that this doesn't mean I agree with most anything you've said, just that when people seem to cling to their own beliefs rather than in established facts, there is no point trying to educate them further.

Signing off this thread.

I'm trying to have a reasonable conversation. We're dealing with consumer perception and being dismissive of that is risky and potentially irresponsible. We can't say that RO only removes water and we can't say that it has no impact on flavor at levels of concentration currently attainable. And it doesn't seem that we know exactly why that noticeable difference exists. Consumers who are not currently aware of that may become aware of that. At best we can say, "Try it yourself. You most likely won't notice a difference or you might like the highly processed stuff better."

On top of that, we can't be sure that the FDA or the EPA will not eventually get heavy-handed about aspects of production for political reasons. Targeting the plastics we use as sources of "environmental estrogen" comes to mind. We can hope that science will win out, but with the level of economic illiteracy in the population, that sometimes seems like foolish optimism.

But to bring this back to the ethics of marketing the syrup that is processed the "old fashioned" way by specifically mentioning "No RO". Producers could counter that with "Advanced Low Energy - Low Particulate Emissions Production Technology" and target market to the "energy conscious". We already have organic certification and I'm sure that if maples grew in third world countries we would have fair trade certification. I don't see a problem with marketing with the truth. As long as no false claim is made about product superiority, no foul.

GeneralStark

04-12-2018, 11:40 AM

I should have said “ Non-RO syrup”. That’s what I meant.

So not using an ro is considered "old fashioned"? What about using tubing? Plastic buckets? IBC Totes? Stainless steel tanks? flue pans? pre-heaters? or any of the other modern advances in sugaring. What about running water in the sugarhouse? and surfaces you can clean? What specifically is old-fashioned maple syrup?

Haynes Forest Products

04-12-2018, 11:42 AM

I'm going to take a break from reading this thread and go back to the forum dedicated to making Popsicle's and rejoin the thread on how they make the Orange flavored ones. :lol:

GeneralStark

04-12-2018, 11:48 AM

I don't see a problem with marketing with the truth. As long as no false claim is made about product superiority, no foul.

I guess the question is then, what's the truth?

Russell Lampron

04-12-2018, 11:57 AM

I have come across a few local producers here marketing their syrup as "produced without reverse osmosis, pipeline, or vacuum" and I am wondering if there are producers on the trader that do this. Does anyone market their syrup as four-wheeler, pickup truck, or tractor free?

If you do, why have you chosen this marketing technique and do you think it is working for you? Are there customers out there demanding this "type" of syrup? Does this really matter?

I understand that there are people in the industry that believe that ro affects the flavor, and that vacuum seems cruel or unusual punishment for the tree ( but will still hang four buckets on a tree), but I am trying to wrap my head around this marketing technique.

It seems to me that producing a good quality, excellent tasting syrup should be the major priority for any producer, and by focusing on what you don't do, you are missing something. I also think that it is bad for the industry on the whole to be suggesting that certain production techniques are better or worse that others. Why not just focus on making your product stand out for its quality and flavor and not by trying to undercut folks that produce good quality products using modern technology?

This is what this thread is about Cedar Eater. Post #1 in this thread! There is no reference to the ethics of using an RO and what it is or isn't doing to the sap and the finished product.

But to bring this back to the ethics of marketing the syrup that is processed the "old fashioned" way by specifically mentioning "No RO". Producers could counter that with "Advanced Low Energy - Low Particulate Emissions Production Technology" and target market to the "energy conscious". We already have organic certification and I'm sure that if maples grew in third world countries we would have fair trade certification. I don't see a problem with marketing with the truth. As long as no false claim is made about product superiority, no foul.

Syrup made the "old fashioned way" using only galvanized buckets and tanks and boiled in an authentic English tin evaporator the way grandfather used to make it.

TonyL

04-12-2018, 12:01 PM

I guess the question is then, what's the truth?

If the statement “ we don’t use tubing or an ro in our operation”, is truthful, then I don’t see it any different than saying “ we use tubing and an ro in our operation”. If both are truthful, then I think both are ok.

McKenney Maples

04-12-2018, 12:31 PM

I'm trying to have a reasonable conversation. We're dealing with consumer perception and being dismissive of that is risky and potentially irresponsible. We can't say that RO only removes water and we can't say that it has no impact on flavor at levels of concentration currently attainable. And it doesn't seem that we know exactly why that noticeable difference exists. Consumers who are not currently aware of that may become aware of that. At best we can say, "Try it yourself. You most likely won't notice a difference or you might like the highly processed stuff better."

On top of that, we can't be sure that the FDA or the EPA will not eventually get heavy-handed about aspects of production for political reasons. Targeting the plastics we use as sources of "environmental estrogen" comes to mind. We can hope that science will win out, but with the level of economic illiteracy in the population, that sometimes seems like foolish optimism.

But to bring this back to the ethics of marketing the syrup that is processed the "old fashioned" way by specifically mentioning "No RO". Producers could counter that with "Advanced Low Energy - Low Particulate Emissions Production Technology" and target market to the "energy conscious". We already have organic certification and I'm sure that if maples grew in third world countries we would have fair trade certification. I don't see a problem with marketing with the truth. As long as no false claim is made about product superiority, no foul.

Maybe it's just me but this all seems a little bit abstract. I mean there maybe some consumers somewhere that spent time contemplating how the syrup they are consuming is processed. But last time I checked the grocery stores are still packing shelves with corn syrup based fake stuff....

Cedar Eater

04-12-2018, 01:50 PM

I guess the question is then, what's the truth?

If someone says, "No RO" and they didn't use RO, then that's the truth. If someone says, "Boiled exclusively over a wood-fired evaporator" and they used RO to concentrate then technically that would be true but I would consider it deceptive even if the FDA allowed it. It's difficult when processing beyond what is required for food safety occurs. Calling maple syrup "pure" while using filter aids and defoamers come to mind. It would not surprise me if some fine-print asterisked disclaimer about "non-alergenic processing aids" eventually becomes required. I lived in California for a while and eventually the Prop 65 warnings about "known to the state of California to contain cancer-causing agents" just became ubiquitous and routinely ignored.

Cedar Eater

04-12-2018, 02:18 PM

This is what this thread is about Cedar Eater. Post #1 in this thread! There is no reference to the ethics of using an RO and what it is or isn't doing to the sap and the finished product.

I don't think I'm the only one in this long thread who got off-track about specific results of RO use, rather than sticking strictly to the ethics of advertising, but I'll try to confine myself to the ethics of advertising.

Syrup made the "old fashioned way" using only galvanized buckets and tanks and boiled in an authentic English tin evaporator the way grandfather used to make it.

Food safety is an important issue. My reference to "old fashioned" was about the marketing ploy suggesting that RO is excluded, not the actual "old fashioned" methods involving questionable practices that probably never harmed a consumer. If someone wants to advertise "no tubing, no RO, no plastic, no anti-biotics, no added mercury, no extraterrestrial technology" I'm okay with that. Likewise, those who use RO can make some claim about a reduced energy footprint. And those who use natgas or oil-fired evap can claim low particulate emissions. As long as it's true, have at it. Increasing sales at the expense of others in the industry is called "competition" and claims of "unfair" or "bad for the industry" are just excuses that are also part of the competition.

Cedar Eater

04-12-2018, 02:28 PM

Maybe it's just me but this all seems a little bit abstract. I mean there maybe some consumers somewhere that spent time contemplating how the syrup they are consuming is processed. But last time I checked the grocery stores are still packing shelves with corn syrup based fake stuff....

That's true enough. Maple syrup seems to be a very big niche market and maybe the sub-niches aren't all that important, except to the producers who try to market to them. But it does seem that everywhere, not just on maple syrup labels, we see the Portlandia effect. It's defined as "an extended joke about what Freud called the narcissism of small differences: the need to distinguish oneself by minute shadings and to insist, with outsized militancy, on the importance of those shadings." Take it with a non-GMO, organic, fair trade, dolphin-safe grain of kosher salt. http://mapletrader.com/community/images/smilies/lol.gif

Z/MAN

04-12-2018, 09:34 PM

Way past time to shut this thread down.

DaveB

04-12-2018, 11:43 PM

Way past time to shut this thread down.

Sometimes discussions need to wind themselves down and don't need to be shut down. There's thousands of threads on this forum that just end naturally. I'm sure this one will as well. I think this one is doing that and it seems to be winding down.

Sugarmaker

04-13-2018, 08:07 PM

.
.
.
.
.!

GeneralStark

05-01-2019, 08:41 PM

I'm not so sure this thread should die yet. It should get at least 30,000 views... :o Who is still out there marketing their syrup as "reverse-osmosis free"?

wiam

05-02-2019, 04:21 AM

Thinking we should be using the green angle and brag about energy savings with the RO.

GeneralStark

05-02-2019, 08:42 AM

Thinking we should be using the green angle and brag about energy savings with the RO.

People certainly seem to get that energy efficiency is a major benefit of using an ro. And time savings. Especially when I explain that we would have to burn 15-20 cords of wood to make our crop instead of 3-5.

With oil it's a no brainer, but I do know folks that regardless of how much wood they burn, in their minds it is more "green" or sustainable than fossil fuels. Air quality is another thing that wood lovers often disregard... To me, energy conservation is a good thing regardless of the type of fuel being used.

Sugar Bear

05-02-2019, 10:03 AM

People certainly seem to get that energy efficiency is a major benefit of using an ro. And time savings. Especially when I explain that we would have to burn 15-20 cords of wood to make our crop instead of 3-5.

With oil it's a no brainer, but I do know folks that regardless of how much wood they burn, in their minds it is more "green" or sustainable than fossil fuels. Air quality is another thing that wood lovers often disregard... To me, energy conservation is a good thing regardless of the type of fuel being used.

There is a backwards "rear endedness" to every argument, everybody makes.

Everything is so nominal compared to our footprint we put on this planet with the use of Henry Fords great invention. Why even bother talking about anything else. It is so incredibly nominal compared to this.

We go though cars from one to the other like "who cares what happens to this planet". And the salt we put on the roads to make them rot even faster so that we can drive fast like idiots. And the pot holes we tolerate so that we can knock out our alignment and buy new tires every two years if we don't have to buy a new car every two years.

Please ... the next time I hear somebody complain about plastic bags ( most of which get reused by the way ) at the grocery store, I am going to go after somebody. Go fix a pot hole for god sake.

I know there are a lot of big guy ... small guy arguments on this website and everybody has a right to claim their way is the best. From the guy in Dover Plains with 800000 taps ( which he does very well by the way ) to the guy wherever with 1 tap. Claiming to be the best is older then the big book. By Far! Dinosaurs made that claim to each other I am certain of it.

I am just glad my syrup taste great and when my users ask me why I just tell them that I make certain my sap and lines are squeaky clean and my sap is boiled quickly and that there are no objects unknown to science growing in any of my tap tubing.

I wish I could say the same thing about all the tap tubing I have seen.

And that my General is not a claim, it is just a fair thought and observation.

Bucket Head

05-02-2019, 10:26 AM

log cabin luke

05-02-2019, 12:02 PM

Why should advertising my maple syrup be different than advertising any other product sold through out human history?

Plus I do not see how it hurts the industry. People are still going to buy syrup. They will just look for non RO syrup if thats what there into or bucket syrup or non vac syrup.

I get a lot of people searching me out for non RO syrup, should I tell them just go and buy some RO syrup that cost less near you instead of driving over an hour to get to my house.

Does Pepsi tell Coke to lay off. Does Ford ever advertise that they are even par with Chevy. Buy a Chevy there just as good as we are.

Sugar Bear

05-02-2019, 01:11 PM

Not arguing here- just replying because I had a few free minutes and figured I'd log on. Henry Ford didn't invent the automobile but he did get it to the masses, the road salt affects more than just the roads (I too wish they would stop using it!) and the Governor of New York just put a ban on plastic bags in this state starting in 2020.
Yes, it's all frustrating.

Steve

Exactly who or what Henry Ford was, makes my point no less salient, but I do love this website for all that it has taught me. So thanks to you and all for making me more knowledgeable.

It is also believed by many that road salt kills maples. My property shows clear and specific effects supporting that claim. That is a thread for another day.

I live by the road. Walk down the road. I see and clean all kinds of garbage that blows onto my property. I never see those plastic bags. People reuse them. I believe poor people should be helped ... but now thanks to a "State Government from New York" poor New Yorkers will have to go buy more hefty garbage bags. Sooo .... the used plastic bags go to landfills with all the other Trillion Trillion pounds of garbage. Most of which is made up in weight by broken down cars.

Meanwhile the roads are neglected .... The cars are destroyed and one destroyed car amounts to about 800,000 of those grocery store plastic bags as far as impact to the environment goes. Dr Tim is welcome to correct the mathematical specifics of my deduction but please use some good hard math if you do so.

Far more certain then maple sap flows in the springtime, kickbacks flow in politics.

I could go on but there is not enough memory on the server to this forum to tell it all.

DrTimPerkins

05-02-2019, 03:17 PM

Plus I do not see how it hurts the industry.

Your comment makes sense...until it is taken to the extreme.

First, yes...I absolutely agree with the presumption that different producers make maple syrup with different flavors. That is the basis of contests -- oftentimes it comes down to knowing what is good tasting syrup and also knowing what is not good tasting syrup. What is less clear is the ACTUAL influence of different factors and how much they contribute to good flavor.

Returning to my reply above. Sure...no problem with anyone saying "I prefer" or "I like" my syrup (or another syrup) better than this other stuff. The problem arises when it turns into "My syrup is BETTER" than the others because of this or that. Lots of syrups have different tastes...all are interesting, and there are as many different people who LIKE a particular taste as there are different flavors of syrup. We've even found some people who seem to LIKE buddy syrup, or PREFER metabolized syrup. It is often quite regional. One of the most common we hear is "I like that smoky taste" of a wood-fired syrup. Technically that is an off-flavor, and any syrup with that could be removed from sale very easily...but some people might prefer that if that is what they are used to (which explains a good amount of preference).

The reason I don't like the BETTER approach is that it infers that another person's syrup is inferior, which may absolutely NOT be true except in the tongue of the beholder. Secondly, the BETTER approach leads to things that I really don't like, such as:

- non-RO syrup (implying syrup made with RO is inferior)
- wood boiled
- bucket syrup

Now maybe that doesn't seem real bad...but it leads to things like...

- "We don't use PFA in our trees"
- "No DE added"
- "Collected and boiled using only non-lead equipment" or "Non-detectible levels of Lead"

Now those types of things start to scare people. Believe it or not....I've seen those on labels (and believe me...when regulators see them...it ain't a good thing). So overall….advertising this way is like starting along a path on a rather slippery slope.

Sugar Bear

05-02-2019, 05:12 PM

Yes, Besides know a lot of what their is to know about maple trees and syrup, part of your job is to stand up for the integrity of the industry.

I did not like it a couple years back when Crown Maple in Dover Plains had articles in the News Paper mentioning how their advanced methodology of making maple syrup made "Better" syrup.

While I make about -.25 % of my annual salary on making maple syrup I found Crowns articles unnecessarily destructive to the hard working small scale operations across the land that do make more then -.25% of their annual salary on maple syrup.

I saw a few small scale guys yap about that or almost "puke", but that is it.

Sugar Bear

05-02-2019, 06:38 PM

Obviously this is old news

https://www.crownmaple.com/about-crown-maple

If I were an old school producer relying on my syrup income, I would be out saying the old style makes better syrup too.

So would just about anybody else.

Dmaskell

05-02-2019, 08:05 PM

Okay so I made about 400 galloons of syrup without an RO this season, which was low for us by a couple hundred galloons, but we burned all the wood we had and were happy. Probably the last year we will do it without an RO, seeing as its too much work, and my brother and I have less time every year, but the idea that an RO, vacuum pump, etc, doesn't change the taste of syrup, is kind of crazy if you ask me, sugaring is not alone in terms of an agricultural produce, in wine, cheese, in tons of other products, cooking in general, even the smallest differences in styles and regions, make huge differences in terms of marketing. BUT I do agree with Dr Tim, , its really important not to say non ro, or better, or to slander or put anyone down at all because of the long tradition and hard work that has gone into the brand of maple syrup, which we all live and work with regardless of state or style and is not owned by any on of us or one state ( although come on Vermont is just so **** good) anyway, personally I do think there is a difference, but in reality without ROs and all the other tech and new ideas throughout the years, sugaring wouldn't be spread all over the world and wouldn't be a business for us to take part in and prosper with. I send syrup to Alaska, to south korea, all over the place and do they really know or care if it was gathered in buckets.

Sugar Bear

05-03-2019, 07:15 AM

I send syrup to Alaska, to south korea, all over the place and do they really know or care if it was gathered in buckets.

Agree with what you are saying about integrity of an industry. Don't slam the other guys product by saying yours is better.

However, everybody does it, from one facet or another for the same particular reason.

We no longer live in a capitalistic society. We live in a "Fly by Dollar" society. Which is make money anyway you can short of totally and fully unethical. And we slide over that rule perpetually. On all fronts.

I have made money on Boeing Stock the past few weeks. Like it was money on the table to be taken away. Legally. Perhaps I was sliding over the rule. Most people would not admit to it if they made the money.

No matter how many taps you have, you should be maple sugaring for the love of the game. If it makes you a living then great or you just plain love it then great. If not then go to one of the other six million places where you can just take money off the table a heck of a lot easier.

Flat pans make great maple syrup, and that is a fact.

The world class technology makes great maple syrup, and that is a fact.

The sociological problem here is that we live in world where the big guy tries to eat the small guy and the small guy fights back.

It is a pervasive problem in all societies in all parts of the world.

But so long as the big guy tries to eat the small guy or is perceived as eating the small guy, the small guy will fight back.