Tree Farms for Sugaring

[jmp]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2014/03/02/traditional-harvesting-maple-sugar-from-forests-may-give-way-tree-farms/hrgPfMmb9ahtjM17FEeqqK/story.html

Not sure how I feel about this. What are your thoughts?

[SmellsLikeSyrupNH]

There is a whole thread about this already, Dr Tim has commented quite a bit about it. I htink its pretty neat if you are into producing syrup as a big business....not sure its really for the mom and pop small sugar shacks.

[CincySyrupPusher]

Notice how they mentioned Genetics... Anyone EVER have a problem with genetics WRT syrup?

Progress is NOT always a good thing! And here I thought sugaring was safe from the prying hands of crap like this.

Be scared people! This can only end poorly for almost everyone. See the price of syrup going to $.99 a gallon, how can ANYONE without a industrial vacuum operation (like they are suggesting) survive?

[jmp]

Thanks for letting me know there was a thread already SmellsLikeSyrupNH. I just saw the article somewhere else and figured I'd post it. Have not been on this site much the past year.

[DaveB]

Notice how they mentioned Genetics... Anyone EVER have a problem with genetics WRT syrup?

Progress is NOT always a good thing! And here I thought sugaring was safe from the prying hands of crap like this.

Be scared people! This can only end poorly for almost everyone. See the price of syrup going to $.99 a gallon, how can ANYONE without a industrial vacuum operation (like they are suggesting) survive?

I'll bite - I know this topic has been covered before but I read this and wanted to comment. "Genetics" or some variant has been going on for millenniums with people cross breeding different species to produce a desired product. One only needs to look at corn and see that it originated as a variety of grass!

I can't see real maple syrup dropping to 99¢ a gallon when corn syrup is 4-5 times that (at least). You're still talking about an intensive process. I also wouldn't mind having more people have access to maple syrup or maple sugar over cane sugar and corn syrup. People will always pay higher prices at local farms so don't worry about that.

Then again, the whole purpose wasn't creating a new row crop. It was about a way that producers could recover from disaster or even expand quicker. It may wind up there, but I doubt it will be there in our lifetimes just like tubing and vacuum systems weren't in our ancestors.

[CincySyrupPusher]

I think everyone knows how Corn has come about. But, it's a little naive to think that Genetics, these days, is only cross breeding select plants in a greenhouse... Its Genetically Modified, in a dish!

In a tree farm, like they are talking about, it would not be as intense a process as you think. And if you really consider the technology available, it could be completely automated! All you need is a BIGGER evaporator and some robots (maybe 1 person to push some buttons). Look at ANY manufacturer that has laid off workers, the reason? Automation...

I am not old enough to remember when the Fake Stuff first came into market, but I am willing to guess the same pattern would be seen if we go to an entirely industrial Maple Production model. It's about supply and demand, they (by they I mean huge corps that will exploit this for gain) will be able to make MORE of it for CHEAPER & FASTER, so the cost goes down. So then, YES, you could see $.99/gallon syrup, or considerably less than we charge now.

It will be the next Aunt Jemimas... people will not go to local producers if they can get the same thing (yes it will be marketed so much, people will forget about local producers) at Walmart. Which they already can BTW. Look at prices you sell a Pint for and look at what you can get a Pint for in Walmart. Half what you charge?

I am not old enough to say "mark my words", but it's happened before. And history has a nasty habit of repeating itself.

[markct]

I think there always will be a market for traditional and local syrup. Look at other products like grass fed beef etc its in how its marketed. I have a large area of power line right of way cropland i may try this in with red maple saplings

[happy thoughts]

I think everyone knows how Corn has come about. But, it's a little naive to think that Genetics, these days, is only cross breeding select plants in a greenhouse... Its Genetically Modified, in a dish!

Maybe, maybe not. Genetically selected and cloned is not the same as genetically modified and cloned which means inserting genes into an organism to produce a new trait. We have been genetically selecting plant traits probably since the Garden of Eden. Every plant you buy at a garden center will have been bred for unique traits without modification through genetic engineering. Biodiversity might be affected but thinking GMO maples already is sort of jumping the gun.

[DrTimPerkins]

And history has a nasty habit of repeating itself.

I agree completely with your last statement. So let's take a quick history lesson of the maple industry.

early-1800s Using spouts and buckets to collect sap is going to kill the maple industry = NOT
mid-1800s Those flat pans are going to ruin the flavor of maple syrup and kill the maple industry = NOT
late-1800s Those metal maple buckets are going to kill the maple industry = NOT
Turn of the Century Those new-fangled evaporators are going to kill the maple industry = NOT
early-1900s Those flue pans are going to kills the maple industry = NOT
1950s That tubing stuff is going to kill the maple industry = NOT
1950s Those plastic spouts are going to kill the maple industry = NOT
1960s Putting maple syrup into plastic jugs is going to kill the maple industry = NOT
1970s That vacuum is going to damage trees and kill the maple industry = NOT
1980s Those RO machines are going to ruin the flavor of maple and kill the maple industry = NOT
1990s Those small spouts and high vacuum are going to hurt trees and kill the maple industry = NOT
2000s Air injection is going to produce all light syrup and kill the maple industry = NOT
2009 That Check-valve spout is going to kill the maple industry = NOT
2014 Those maple plantations are going to kill the maple industry = highly unlikely!

So if history does repeats itself, the likelihood that this will kill the maple industry is pretty low.

You seem to make several assumptions, most of which are quite unlikely or already disproven. First, nobody is suggesting that you cut down mature trees and convert everything to plantations. That would be crazy. Secondly, there is no genetic manipulation of maple going on, and nothing planned that I can imagine. Corn...yes, maples...no. Maples just have too long a generation time to do genetic manipulation. As far as plant selection and breeding....yes, that is normal and already being done, and will probably be practiced quite a bit more with this new process. But nobody is taking about putting fish genes into maple trees. Cost....economic models show that the plantation method, although it will produce far more syrup on an acre of land than mature trees will, has a production price per gallon that is almost exactly the same as standard sugaring now, so there is no way the price will drop due to this method. Like standard sugaring, it is fairly labor and equipment intensive. Until they can build a robot that can cut the top off a sapling and put a vacuum-tight fitting on, I think we're all pretty safe.

[jmp]

Great summary Dr. Perkins. Thanks.

[CincySyrupPusher]

Biodiversity might be affected but thinking GMO maples already is sort of jumping the gun.

Said farmers in 1983... when first GMO plant was produced.

[eagle lake sugar]

Fish genes in maple trees dr. Tim? You may be on to something there! Maple glazed salmon in a bottle!

[CincySyrupPusher]

I agree completely with your last statement. So let's take a quick history lesson of the maple industry.

early-1800s Using spouts and buckets to collect sap is going to kill the maple industry = NOT
mid-1800s Those flat pans are going to ruin the flavor of maple syrup and kill the maple industry = NOT
late-1800s Those metal maple buckets are going to kill the maple industry = NOT
Turn of the Century Those new-fangled evaporators are going to kill the maple industry = NOT
early-1900s Those flue pans are going to kills the maple industry = NOT
1950s That tubing stuff is going to kill the maple industry = NOT
1950s Those plastic spouts are going to kill the maple industry = NOT
1960s Putting maple syrup into plastic jugs is going to kill the maple industry = NOT
1970s That vacuum is going to damage trees and kill the maple industry = NOT
1980s Those RO machines are going to ruin the flavor of maple and kill the maple industry = NOT
1990s Those small spouts and high vacuum are going to hurt trees and kill the maple industry = NOT
2000s Air injection is going to produce all light syrup and kill the maple industry = NOT
2009 That Check-valve spout is going to kill the maple industry = NOT
2014 Those maple plantations are going to kill the maple industry = highly unlikely!

So if history does repeats itself, the likelihood that this will kill the maple industry is pretty low.

You seem to make several assumptions, most of which are quite unlikely or already disproven. First, nobody is suggesting that you cut down mature trees and convert everything to plantations. That would be crazy. Secondly, there is no genetic manipulation of maple going on, and nothing planned that I can imagine. Corn...yes, maples...no. Maples just have too long a generation time to do genetic manipulation. As far as plant selection and breeding....yes, that is normal and already being done, and will probably be practiced quite a bit more with this new process. But nobody is taking about putting fish genes into maple trees. Cost....economic models show that the plantation method, although it will produce far more syrup on an acre of land than mature trees will, has a production price per gallon that is almost exactly the same as standard sugaring now, so there is no way the price will drop due to this method. Like standard sugaring, it is fairly labor and equipment intensive. Until they can build a robot that can cut the top off a sapling and put a vacuum-tight fitting on, I think we're all pretty safe.

Says the very person who gets $$$ from government/etc. for this "research"...

Forgive me if I quote the article, "But radical ideas, the sugar makers quickly note, have a way of becoming reality if they make money."

[happy thoughts]

Said farmers in 1983... when first GMO plant was produced.

I think Dr Tim pretty much covered that in his response. Even if that were to become the case the door would be even more wide open for small and especially organic syrup producers. I see this as potentially viable on organic farms which tend to be small in acreage. I read somewhere that the average organic farm is just 6 acres. There will always be a niche market for organics and also locally sourced foods. I don't think you've considered the locavore food trend which is growing yearly. There will always be a market for locally produced foods often for a premium price.

You also haven't considered the potential effects of a large scale Asian longhorned beetle outbreak. The potential for mature maple loss is scary. Look at the number of trees removed in Worcester MA alone. God forbid, but there may come a day when we are all grateful to be able to harvest sap from saplings.

Anyhoo, may your sap flow freely this year and your buckets overfill! All the best :)

[happy thoughts]

Forgive me if I quote the article, "But radical ideas, the sugar makers quickly note, have a way of becoming reality if they make money."

But isn't that what business is supposed to be about?

[CincySyrupPusher]

Never said making money was bad... The LOVE of money is root of all evil.

But are small-med producers all about the money? Its the big corporations that will take this kind of method and run everyone else out because they can lower costs to the point small-medium producers can't make any money.

Sure everyone is still getting "real" syrup, but at what cost? All you need is 1 of these farms to come online in VT or Canada and the price of syrup will drop in that area.

From Article:
“It could economically benefit the industry. But it may force maple production out of the woods and into tidy farm rows, like any agribusiness. And that’s sad,” said Laura Sorkin, co-owner with her husband, Eric, of a 67,000-tap sugar bush on 1,000 acres in Cambridge.

[CincySyrupPusher]

Good debate BTW... it doesn't affect my 40 bucket operation in the least. Just worried about all you other guys/girls. The people who make their living off syrup and will be affected by something like this.

Everyone might not see it and that's fine. Some might embrace it, good for them. At the end of it all, we all have syrup for our pancakes and waffles!

[lew]

I'd also like to add to Dr. Tim's statement the large corporations aren't going to gamble large sums of money on a product/process that is so dependent on the weather for a minmal profit if any at all. This year is a perfect example. You have to be a junky to stay in this game. Profits are there to be made, but not predictably. Large corporations are betting their money on things with a more predictable margin.

[DrTimPerkins]

Says the very person who gets $$$ from government/etc. for this "research"...

OK, so to summarize, you have no evidence for what you're suggesting, and your total argument is that this is a vast government conspiracy to funnel big $$$ to me for research. Gee....I guess you really got it all figured out.

[village idiot]

So, to recap the thread so far…

Yes, we have heard about tree farms for sugaring, as have a lot of non-sugar'ers.
Research is terrible. Because GENTETICS!
Dr. Perkins is apparently better funded than I realized.

I think that covers most of it, but I'm not sure how a 67,000 tap operation is fearful of "the big guys" coming in and ???

Profit!

I hope everyones season is better than mine so far.

[DrTimPerkins]

Dr. Perkins is apparently better funded than I realized.

I wish! :D Unfortunately that hasn't EVER been a problem.

[AmberRidge]

Well as a larger producer in VT I think I will offer my opinion of this. Let me be clear by saying I cannot see how this is a good thing for VT sugarmakers or any sugarmakers for that matter. Proctor is a research facility from the University of Vermont, and funded in part by Vermont Sugarmakers through the county and state associations.

By creating a way for syrup to be produced not just in VT or the North East where maples grow, but opening the door for it to be made anywhere in the world there is a freeze or thaw (china maybe), I perceive this as a huge threat. As we stand now in the maple producing states we have no problem with increasing supply to keep up with demand, in the US Vermont is only tapping 3% of its trees and states such as NY and Michigan and not even close to 1% of trees are tapped. So why would proctor want to do this??? I would say money. Since Proctor got a taste of royalties from the CV spouts, it has vigorously shifted from research that sugar makers want, to inventing new products and methods, then pattening them with the hope to license these innovations regardless of the impact. How many patents have been filed? I know 1/2" tubing used as laterals was when it looked like that may have legs. Obviously this method has been patented as well. Tim's long list of innovations from his previous post never has had a method that can allow syrup to be taken from the woods to a field ANYWHERE in the world. A big difference. The repercussions of this is much further reaching than simply innovating ways to get more syrup from my woods or make it more efficiently. Taking the woods of out maple and potentially maple out of the North East is not something sugar makers should happy about, and not something "our" maple research center should be attempting to bring to the market without our input. As I see it the only one who will benefit are those looking to line their pockets; Proctor Maple Research Center.

Then there is the tradition and the niche that makes syrup different, it is a natural woods product. Until now. Clearly Money has taken precidence over the traditions that make maple syrup both unique and valuable.

Finally, for all of us who have invested in land that we can sugar, what will this do to our land values? Many have paid lots of money for land that, were there no maples would not be worth as much. If someone can now buy the cheapest piece of dirt around and plant some trees, will our beautiful sugar woods still have the same value?

We do not need this and I have talked to many who feel the same. I hope to hear the thoughts of everyone else.

[Foremaple]

From the little bit I have read on the subject, I am certain that if this market is SO lucrative when you add the sapling factor, the chinese or whoever would already be all over it. It will all come flying apart when their first crop hits the market at $8./gallon because "the cat is already out of the bag". Being an optimist to a fault, I highly doubt you will see dramatic changes in the Maple industry. My two cents!

[TerryEspo]

If big business can profit from this method and goes ahead, who is surprised? Everyone wants to make money.
If Dr. Tim is funded as a professional, university educated, and does studies on this, who is surprised? Tim is a professional and does a job.
If, someone has a whole lot of money invested in their personal sugar business and is worried, who is surprised? I will say I am happy that my family business is not sugaring and hoping to pass it along to my children.

In my opinion, if there is money to be made, regardless of who gets hurt, someone will do it. No doubt.

It will be interesting to see in upcoming years where this technology leads to. Its great that this system works, great for anyone that suffers major damage to their trees or has limited acreage.

I hope this all works out for everyone concerned.

[DrTimPerkins]

To address all of this would take a great deal of space, so I will address each comment briefly.


Proctor is a research facility from the University of Vermont, and funded in part by Vermont Sugarmakers through the county and state associations.

The VMSMA has provided a donation to the UVM PMRC for a number of years. We are grateful for the long association we have had with the VT Association, and all the other state associations, which is far greater than the value of the gift we receive. The VMSMA donation amounts to 0.20-0.25% of our annual operating budget. The total of all grants (NAMSC) and gifts from all associations annually amounts to around 2.3% of our annual operating budget.


By creating a way for syrup to be produced not just in VT or the North East where maples grow, but opening the door for it to be made anywhere in the world there is a freeze or thaw....

And how is this NOT the case without the plantation system.....just that it would take a longer time period. There are maples in other places in the world already with freeze-thaw, but there is no maple history or tradition. There are birches in other places in the world, but again, they don't make syrup out of it. The process of taking sap and making it into syrup is unique to North America, but trees that produce sweet sap and products from that sap is already quite well known. An industry is not the trees alone, but instead is comprised of a great deal of other factors that go along with the resource.


Vermont is only tapping 3% of its trees and states such as NY and Michigan and not even close to 1% of trees are tapped.

While that may be true for all maple trees in the State, Vermont now taps over 50% of all maples in stands > 60 taps/acre with decent road access. That is why land prices with good maple density are high in the state.


Since Proctor got a taste of royalties from the CV spouts, it has vigorously shifted from research that sugar makers want, to inventing new products and methods, then pattening them with the hope to license these innovations regardless of the impact.

PMRC has not received a cent in Royalties. I have always been very upfront in this area. UVM owns any patents generated by any of its employees. They decide whether to license, who to license to, and what the fees (if any) are. I have no say in these negotiations. I do however receive a percentage of the royalties due to my position on the faculty and the contract the UVM faculty have with the institution. I have no say in what that contract says either....it is a standard part of the benefit package of all UVM faculty members. People seem to think that I (or Proctor) have made a lot of money from this.....that is simply not the case. I have a good job (and it took me 12+ yrs of college and 20 yrs of experience to get there). My wife has a good job. The income from royalties is just a small fraction of my total household income. Is it nice to get.....sure thing. But to presume it is an overriding factor in what I do is BS.

As for the "plantation method" patent application. It will very likely never generate much of anything. It's going to take 10 or more years for plantations to get going. A patent lasts 14-20 yrs (depending on the type), so even if it is licensed neither I or UVM stand to benefit much.

The other thing is that as a public institution, we have an obligation to talk about what we do. We can't simply hide this research....there is no putting the genie back into the bottle.


I know 1/2" tubing used as laterals was when it looked like that may have legs. Obviously this method has been patented as well.

Although it might be obvious, you are incorrect.

It is important for people to understand that there are several reasons why things are patented. One is simply to protect the IP so that others do not try claim it as their own. Within weeks of the CV patent application being published, a Canadian company field a copy-cat patent....what they didn't realize was that we'd also filed in Canada.


"our" maple research center should be attempting to bring to the market without our input.

You presume that we did not seek any input. You are again, incorrect.


Then there is the tradition and the niche that makes syrup different, it is a natural woods product. Until now. Clearly Money has taken precidence over the traditions that make maple syrup both unique and valuable.

A sugarbush, by definition, is not a "natural woods." It is a managed woods.

Do you think that the inventors of evaporations, tubing, air injection, small spouts, vacuum pumps were all driven solely by money. That would be a very sad way to look at everything.


Finally, for all of us who have invested in land that we can sugar, what will this do to our land values? Many have paid lots of money for land that, were there no maples would not be worth as much. If someone can now buy the cheapest piece of dirt around and plant some trees, will our beautiful sugar woods still have the same value?

So we finally get to the crux of the matter. Basically you are saying that "I got mine and nobody else can get in." I do understand that you have an investment, and you don't want anything upsetting the syrup (apple) cart. Unfortunately in our society that is not the way the system works.


We do not need this and I have talked to many who feel the same. I hope to hear the thoughts of everyone else.

I thank you for your perspective...and am very willing to hear it. You have every right to your own opinion. However the vast majority of people that have spoken with me about it have a very different opinion than you do.

[40to1]

Not that Dr. Perkins can't fight his own fights (see above), but when you consider how often - and in how many ways - he and UVM have saved the sugaring industry, and given information, research, and advice to small producers, I can't think of anyone I would rather have leading the way as we enter the era of "in-line sugarbushes".

Dr. Perkins has been open and honest with us about his research so that we can adapt and benefit from it. We ought to make the most of the opportunity.
We have the advantage: we have the know-how and the equipment to make maple sugar; now we have to grow some saplings.

[lpakiz]

40to1:
AMEN!

[theguywiththename]

Why are we all worried? By my calculations, a 10000 tap operation is enough to consider yourself self employed and put good money in your pocket. So if people put in 3-6 acres at 5000 taps an acre it's enough for one person. I can't see people putting in 100 acre plantations or 500000 tap operations as it's unrealistic and a person can only have some much money! Also your equipment costs and trained personnel are not cheap. Try training 50-60 people to cut off saplings and properly install a high vacuum apparatus without any leaks. Near impossible! So at regular yields of .5 gallon on vacuum, that's 250000 gallons at a going rate around here of 65$ a gallon that's 16.25 million.

[Michael Greer]

Planting Maple trees in the Northeast seems plain silly. I pull a thousand or so out of my gardens and flower beds EVERY year. If it were not for mowers and tillers and such, the entire Northeast would revert back to trees in a decade. Don't get me wrong, I do indeed plant trees; Maple, Oak, Apple, Pear, Plums and Cedars. White pines and spruces, wherever there's a space, and wherever I can convince a neighbor, I plant lots of trees. But Maple trees are so slow, and the dollar value is really so low, you'd always be money ahead to plant fruit trees. The only reason sugaring works at all is because someone else (Mother Nature) already did all the hard work for us many years ago. If you're in it for the money, or should I say, in it for your kids (future money), plant Black Walnuts....or corn.

[happy thoughts]

I do indeed plant trees; Maple, Oak, Apple, Pear, Plums and Cedars. White pines and spruces, wherever there's a space, and wherever I can convince a neighbor, I plant lots of trees.

Michael OT but be careful planting apples and cedars near each other. At my old place where red cedars grow wild I was never able to grow apples because of cedar apple rust.

http://nysipm.cornell.edu/factsheets/treefruit/diseases/car/car.asp

[AmberRidge]

[QUOTE=DrTimPerkins;248131]To address all of this would take a great deal of space, so I will address each comment briefly.


And how is this NOT the case without the plantation system.....just that it would take a longer time period. There are maples in other places in the world already with freeze-thaw, but there is no maple history or tradition. There are birches in other places in the world, but again, they don't make syrup out of it. The process of taking sap and making it into syrup is unique to North America, but trees that produce sweet sap and products from that sap is already quite well known. An industry is not the trees alone, but instead is comprised of a great deal of other factors that go along with the resource.

While this may be the case as we know maple and birch in a forest stand, if you are able to increase output per acre from 25-50 gallons of syrup per acre to 400-600 according to your presentation then you have much different economics should the technology come around. One example I can think of is olive oil, which traditionally was made overseas, there are now plantations in the USA. That was not in our "culture", but none the less its produced here.

While that may be true for all maple trees in the State, Vermont now taps over 50% of all maples in stands > 60 taps/acre with decent road access. That is why land prices with good maple density are high in the state.

And it has taken how long to get to your number of 50%? Additionally, 60 taps per acre is well higher than needed to set up a profitable sugar woods. I know according to many installers that the average woods they set up is 50 taps/acre, and many are less. Nothing wrong with that. How did you get the numbers anyway? Why don't' you re-run them with at 50 taps or less.


PMRC has not received a cent in Royalties. I have always been very upfront in this area. UVM owns any patents generated by any of its employees. They decide whether to license, who to license to, and what the fees (if any) are. I have no say in these negotiations. I do however receive a percentage of the royalties due to my position on the faculty and the contract the UVM faculty have with the institution. I have no say in what that contract says either....it is a standard part of the benefit package of all UVM faculty members. People seem to think that I (or Proctor) have made a lot of money from this.....that is simply not the case. I have a good job (and it took me 12+ yrs of college and 20 yrs of experience to get there). My wife has a good job. The income from royalties is just a small fraction of my total household income. Is it nice to get.....sure thing. But to presume it is an overriding factor in what I do is BS.

As for the "plantation method" patent application. It will very likely never generate much of anything. It's going to take 10 or more years for plantations to get going. A patent lasts 14-20 yrs (depending on the type), so even if it is licensed neither I or UVM stand to benefit much.

The other thing is that as a public institution, we have an obligation to talk about what we do. We can't simply hide this research....there is no putting the genie back into the bottle.

Well, being motivated by money certainly is the public perception that many have got over the past few years. Everyone is. If its not true consider asking your self why and attempting to change it rather than attempting to knock down anyone who has a different opinion.



Although it might be obvious, you are incorrect. 1/2" tubing reference

It is important for people to understand that there are several reasons why things are patented. One is simply to protect the IP so that others do not try claim it as their own. Within weeks of the CV patent application being published, a Canadian company field a copy-cat patent....what they didn't realize was that we'd also filed in Canada.


No patent on the 1/2" tubing, sorry for not being clear, your right. You actually told me to my face about 3 or 4 years ago when I asked you about it and mentioned experimenting with it. You told me you had patented anything used as a lateral line bigger than 5/16. So you are being at the very least misleading either now or back then.


You presume that we did not seek any input. You are again, incorrect.

Really, by who and how many?


A sugarbush, by definition, is not a "natural woods." It is a managed woods.

Now you are just picking at strings, but I know many, including myself, especially on leases just set up tubing as the woods grew.

Do you think that the inventors of evaporations, tubing, air injection, small spouts, vacuum pumps were all driven solely by money. That would be a very sad way to look at everything.

Yes, but they are for profit companies, not funded in any way by donations.


So we finally get to the crux of the matter. Basically you are saying that "I got mine and nobody else can get in." I do understand that you have an investment, and you don't want anything upsetting the syrup (apple) cart. Unfortunately in our society that is not the way the system works.

In reality, that is not at all what I am saying. I see you want to put me down and sound selfish for disagreeing with what you are doing. To say "I got mine" is ridiculous. I have sold equipment and helped countless sugarmakers start their businesses from 10 taps to 20,000+. Again less than 1% of trees are tapped in the USA. I have not met someone who has wanted to get in to sugaring that has not been able to, though some areas are tapped more heavily than others. If anyone wants to become a big time sugar maker, buy or lease land in Northern Michigan. You can drive for miles and miles and miles through untapped maples and the land is not as steep either. Oh whoops, I should not have said that someone might "get in" and I clearly don't want that according to you.

I believe that it is not in the best interest of our North American Maple industry to invent a way for syrup to be made anywhere in the world.

[DaveB]

I'm not sure where the notion that this new method means that syrup will one day be made "anywhere in the world" but that is patently false. There are very few places that experience the same kind of climate as eastern North America. That includes the entire climate, not just freeze thaw cycles in the late winter/spring. That limits where this method would have any application. It also would require dedicated single crop fields which is undesirable in megafarms.

Can you imagine taking the vast amount of acres that you're proposing out of production and only getting one crop a year and then only get pennies for it? It would never happen! As others have pointed out, when you factor in trying to eliminate vacuum leaks on large operations, the collection, processing and bottling, their comes a point where the cost of maintaining a very large operation starts to eat into profits. Which means that it remains a specialty crop.

Further, the notion that real maple syrup will one day be cheaper than corn syrup is ridiculous. Even with the examples given such as olive oil the originating locations still experience a premium price for their products. If anything, it might increase the applications and usage of real maple syrup and you'd think that people would welcome that. I do! I'd love to see maple in more products!

I have no problem with innovation and I'm grateful that we have institutions like the PMRC and fine people like the good doctor around.

[DrTimPerkins]

I believe that it is not in the best interest of our North American Maple industry to invent a way for syrup to be made anywhere in the world.

As I have said, you are most certainly welcome to your own opinion. On the other hand, I believe you are incorrect. I also feel no strong compulsion to answer to an anonymous poster who has already made up their mind and feels like they can insult me and demand I respond to questions. I doubt anything I could say would make any difference anyhow. However should you feel like emailing me privately, or picking up the phone to give me a call, then you are quite welcome to do so.

[AmberRidge]

I will be sending you an email Dr Perkins. I wanted to bring up another point of view shared by myself and many other sugarmakers. I have seen over the past few years that it seems some at proctor have shifted focus to research that may prove to be profitable potentially for themselves. Now, I don't work for proctor so I cannot say this is truth, but if it is not than would you want to know what some perceive? This is a public forum and it is healthy for all to see all points of view, and make a decision. Perhaps my point of view will change as well.

I truly believe that proctor has been invaluable to maple industry. Infact, I have worked with proctor in the past. I enjoy hearing the research and use it to make my own decisions about my business.

As for insulting, I am sorry if you felt that way, but I think that both may have been in this exchange.!!!! I replied to your responses with my own what would one expect??

As for answering questions I posed, it does not matter either way, sometimes as much is said when there is no response.

You guys are right, it could not be done anywhere in the world, but there are many many places it could. Another example is wine in VT. Are we buying more wine or replacing California or imported wine with local? I don't know, but to me it seems like opening that can of worms might not be the best idea when we have so much potential to grow "naturally".


Thanks for the input!

[markct]

Dr Tim i just want to say that in this day and age of alb and other threats i realy appreciate that you are doing this research that could well save our industry altogether if god forbid a widespread outbreak occured someday

[AmberRidge]

Dr Tim i just want to say that in this day and age of alb and other threats i realy appreciate that you are doing this research that could well save our industry altogether if god forbid a widespread outbreak occured someday

That is a good point.

[johnallin]

As the owner of four US and two Canadian patents, the definition of "patent" might be appropriate here.

What is a patent? From the USPTO website:
A patent is an intellectual property right granted by the Government of the United States of America to an inventor “to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States” for a limited time in exchange for public disclosure of the invention when the patent is granted.

Assuming the purpose of Proctor Research is to promote maple through research and development, applying for, and receiving a patent on this research and development allows Proctor to exclude others from using the invention.

What does that mean to someone who makes their living with maple products? In its simplest, you will not be able to utilize any of what you have read, on this or any other site, if you sell your product. In this case I think it's utilizing small sapplings (which most of you have an abundance of) as a means of increasing your tap count. If I'm right - and I may very well not be - the invention here could prevent you from cutting the tops of your own sapplings if you are going to profit by doing so.

The hardware involved seems to be not much different than what's used in vacuum bagging boat hulls or woodworking and is readily available, but you will not legally be permitted to use it unless you buy it from an approved - by the patent holder - source.

Maybe I'm all wet, but if my family depended upon a maple business for its well being, I may be rubbed the wrong way by all of this too.

I have mucho respect for Dr Tim, and anyone with the ability to create, but here we do it for a living and patent our ideas/products so we can prevent our competition from profiting from our work. I don't see where the University has any competition... Just my thoughts.

[DrTimPerkins]

Assuming the purpose of Proctor Research is to promote maple through research and development, applying for, and receiving a patent on this research and development allows Proctor to exclude others from using the invention.

Just as importantly, it prevents others from monopolizing the invention to the exclusion of others.

[spud]

If I was the person that invented the CV spout I would want a Patent. Why would I want others to profit from my invention? To have a patent in both USA and Canada is very smart. What I am wondering is how many years are these patents good for? You can bet that as soon as it is legal for someone else to make similar spouts they will. All the other maple dealers bash the CVs and tell their customers there no better and any other spout. You can bet they will change their thoughts as soon as their company can sell a similar product. No one maple manufacturer sells the best of everything. If you want the best of everything for you're operation you will have to buy from all the manufacture's.

Spud

[southfork]

I own sugarbushes in two states, the largest being 2,400 taps currently in the process of expanding to about 6,000 taps on high vac.

I have no issue with Dr. Perkins and his quest to advance and/or find alternative methods for maple syrup production. This type of spirit is what has brought other areas of farming and ranching out of the dark ages. I see the plantation method as an advancement, ( or alternative ), not a threat to those of us in the industry.

Of far greater concern to me are invasive species such as the ALB. In fact, after witnessing the destruction of the EAB to ash species in Michigan and Wisconsin, I for one would think twice about investing into mature maple stands for the purpose of a long career in maple. Hopefully the ALB can be contained and eradicated in the US, but I am not counting on it. I am expanding my maple operation, but only on trees I have owned for over 25 years. Too risky of an investment otherwise.... IMO.

[heus]

Dr Perkins I just want to say thanks for all that you do for the industry.

[johnallin]

Just as importantly, it prevents others from monopolizing the invention to the exclusion of others.

Touché Dr Tim...I had not looked at it that way and, as you said, you can't put the genie back in the bottle.
It's better that Proctor is in control of the technology as opposed to some corporate giant.
And I'll add; that if we didn't embrace and explore new thoughts - we'd still be riding horses to work...

[Quagmire33]

I've been intrigued with this subject since I read about it a few weeks ago. I like the idea of the possibility of me planting 30-40 saplings and being able to harvest sap from them within 10 years. I live on an acre and only have half a dozen maples (2 sugar) and most aren't big enough to tap. I go anywhere I can to tap maples just to keep my hobby going. I would love to plant some trees at the back of my property near my shack and be able to Harvest sap in my life time. I really want to learn more about this process. IE, how many years can you harvest from one tree, and would I have to have a continuous planting cycle to keep this process going.... Etc.

[Grand Square Acres]

If this ever comes to past, then all we can do is up the quality of our product. Quality will trump quantity any day. But as any one noticed that those who are crying the loudest are the same ones that opposed the new grading standers. As I have always said "Change is inevitable, deal with it, and keep on truck'n"

[jimbison]

what would happen if you just cut a twig off and slide a 5/16 line over it no need to use a special cap just clamp the line and go to the next anyone ever tried son thought of this as we were coming out of the sugarbush and seen a sapcicle almost a foot long hanging over the road if a twig leaked that much in the 5 hours we were in there how much in a day with vaccumn and never worry about tapholes ??

[KevinS]

96089609
With maples I planted looking like this from deer damage. I am really looking forward to trying this next season

[Bemis]

I put 150 sugars and 150 reds in the ground over the weekend. I'm on a piece that has no mature sugars and only a few reds. Looking for a patch to play on in the future. I'm thinking I'll plant a few hundred every few years and see how it all plays out. Figured it can't hurt to start now.

[SDdave]

I must say this has been an interesting topic, although heated at times. I do have an "off" question though. In the land of hardly any maple trees, I was wondering what type of spacing would be ideal if I wanted to plant a few hundred Silvers and/or Autumn Blaze. I am looking at putting some trees on the map of South Dakota, and also looking for tapping in 15 to 20 years.

SDdave

[KevinS]

I am pretty sure if you are going for mature trees you want to end up with trees right at 40 feet apart. row crop much closer.. why not both? row crop until the ones you chose for mature trees shadeout the production on the rows?