Spouts

[spud]

I have always used the clear CDL smart spouts for the first two seasons on a set-up. On the third season I then switch to the CV2 spouts. Last year was very bad for me because I was one of the unlucky people that bought the CV2 spouts with the pin holes in them. I plan to take a year off from using the CV2 spouts so the dealers can sell the remaining defected spouts to someone else. I have always liked the smart spout but they do seem to loosen up during the season and then need to be reset. The CV2 spouts are outstanding in staying in the tree tight all season. I am wondering what other spouts are out there that grip like the CV2. I want to tap early and not have to worry about reseating spouts mid season. Thanks.

Spud

[steam maker]

We used the cdl white max flo spouts last yr and had zero issues . Plan on using them again this yr

[GeneralStark]

Doesn't leader make a regular polycarbonate spout without the check valve?

[WESTMAPLES]

sorry to here about your CV2 issues ive bought and used them for 2 seasons with no issues, even bought a bunch for a friend they all came from bascom`s both years they must not have got the bad ones or other dealers are overstocked with the bad ones and didn`t plan on returning them, so they just sold them whether they are good or bad. im sure if you bought for a high volume dealer you probly wouldn`t get new old stock CV2`s and just the latest batch they got or like you said give something else a try

[mountainvan]

I use the antimicrobial spile and tap the beginning of January and go till the middle of April. They are now less than 50 cents and last several years.

[n8hutch]

I use the clear lapierre polycarbonate spouts, I don't however have vaccum, I can't imagine one pulling out though, they are the most miserable spouts to pull.

[maple flats]

I have used CV2's for 3 seasons now. I had 3 or 4 bad in season 1, 2-3 bad in season 2 and I think only 1 bad last year. Season 1 I had about 800 on CV2, #2 was about 100 CV2 and #3 was 1320 CV2. I have however had a few that left the little tip in when being pulled. Since they are just plastic I just leave them. They heal over just as fast as those with no tip in them. If one is run thru a sawmill someday, the saw won't even know it hit anything.
Those 1st two years I used a tubing tool to assemble the new CV2, Last year I used the Hot End system, much faster and easier, with no leaks at the connection. In fact I liked the Hot End System so much I bought a second, each with a spare battery. We worked in teams of 2, one putting on the tap, another drilling and setting the tap. It worked well. However, with a smaller crew, one can easily assemble the tap to the lateral, drill the hole and set the tap. We just had so much snow especially in the beginning I liked to have 2 work together. If someone fell it is much faster to have help up and we started with 4' very fluffy snow and were sinking in almost 2' the first Saturday, by the next week we only sunk in about 6" and the third and final Sat. we stayed on top but still could not remove the snowshoes.

[steam maker]

Hey mountainvan are those the green spouts ??? If so i got a box of them that i never used if u know of anyone that wants to buy them , they r about 6 yrs old but have been in a box in the cellar never used

[spud]

Doesn't leader make a regular polycarbonate spout without the check valve?

They do but is it the same machine that makes the CV2? What material is the MaxFlow white spouts made of? I have been told they are soft and stay tight in the tree all season.

Spud

[WESTVIRGINIAMAPLER]

They do but is it the same machine that makes the CV2? What material is the MaxFlow white spouts made of? I have been told they are soft and stay tight in the tree all season.

Spud

My understanding the CDL Maxflow spouts are mixture of polycarbonate and nylon. They are tremendous for sealing and no vac leaks for entire season. They recommend tapping with 19/64 bit for best possible seal.

[spud]

Thats what I want to hear. Thank you all.

Spud

[WESTMAPLES]

if the maxflow spouts are soft wouldn`t they easily break while knocking them in and what about removal ??? WVMAPLER do you have any pics of them ??? the maxflow kinda sound like white tree saver spouts but im interested to see what they are like

[steam maker]

My salesman gave me a 5/16 bit for the maxflos , sealed awesome no leaks and no broken spouts while pulling taps. But i better order all mine cause if word gets out that they dont leak vaccum then there will be a shortage😄😄😄😄😄

[madmapler]

For what its worth, I had a few cv2 spouts that leaked through the head last year. Must have been the pinholes Spud's been talking about. 3 or 4 out of 1300.

[WESTVIRGINIAMAPLER]

Here is a picture of one. They are available in different colors but I like white the best and Acer research center has shown 7% more sap with white spout over black spout. They had 50,000 of these installed last year at sugarbush in Canada and ran 28" of vac entire season. They are the same spouts as the white and green spouts for 3/16 tubing. They have a really nice wide head which makes it easier to grab them with spout puller when pulling spouts.

[spud]

The 50,000 spouts installed in Canada. Were they barbed or slip on? I am kind of partial to the slip on spouts.

Spud

[GeneralStark]

They also make a version of the smart spout using the same material.

[unc23win]

I had heard before last season that these spouts were very well liked by some bigger producers who have to tap early. I believe that both CDL and H2O are using either the same spout or very similar (maybe Eratube made). With bigger producers they have to account for the cost of the spout and the labor involved in installing it and if it comes out the labor to reinstall it plus of course they will loose vacuum and sap. This is where in some cases the scale tips against the check valve.

Myself I have been using the smart spout from CDL (not one pulled out) this year I am trying the new 130' Lapierre spout. 2 seasons ago I had all CV2. Last season about 200 CV2 the rest smart spout. Just haven't quite seen the CV performance I would like. Right now I am not planning on using check valves for 2016.

[WESTVIRGINIAMAPLER]

Spud,

I'm not sure and I can try to get an answer. I am going to try some of both this year and see if I see a difference. I like the slip on too.

[WESTVIRGINIAMAPLER]

The 50,000 White CDL 5/16 Max Flow spouts I referred to earlier were with barbs and they ran 28" of vacuum from tapping until end of season. These are the same as the green and white 3/16 spouts.

[spud]

The 50,000 White CDL 5/16 Max Flow spouts I referred to earlier were with barbs and they ran 28" of vacuum from tapping until end of season. These are the same as the green and white 3/16 spouts.

Thank You, These are the spouts I will be using. My understanding is I need to buy the tool to put the spout on the drops. I look forward to running 28 inches of vacuum again. Last year was terrible using the CV2 spouts.

Spud

[WESTVIRGINIAMAPLER]

I use the $ 79 CDL one handed tool and works great for me and I modified it to be able to use on 3/16 and 5/16 so I can carry one tool.

[GeneralStark]

Thank You, These are the spouts I will be using. My understanding is I need to buy the tool to put the spout on the drops. I look forward to running 28 inches of vacuum again. Last year was terrible using the CV2 spouts.

Spud

The do make the max flow spout with the barbless connection as well.

[BreezyHill]

We use he CDL Clear seasonal on high vac with no issues at all. Slip on is far easier to install. The study on clear spouts seems to hold true for our operation. We did have an issue during end of season with some 30P tubing slipping of of the spouts on three trees but it also slipped off on a ladder. Never had the issue with CDL tubing, and some of the CDL was a few years older than the 30P.

Ben

[unc23win]

Spud I would be interested to hear how you like which ever one you choose. I would think that if you have your kids install them over Christmas break you might as well go with the barbed fitting. If you were going to wait and install them while tapping then maybe barbless.

For what it is worth I have never had any tubing pull off barbless spouts. 30P is not made for drops, but people do use it.

[BreezyHill]

For what it is worth I have never had any tubing pull off barbless spouts. 30P is not made for drops, but people do use it.

You should tell that one to Bascoms. My Dad was a sub dealer for them for many years until he passed.

Most people realize that any tubing can be used in all situations...but it may not be the BEST product for the job. But that comes with experience and trying different things. Off label use is how many cancer drugs were found and how many of todays advances were achieved. But many don't realize that either. LOL

Ben

[unc23win]

You should tell that one to Bascoms. My Dad was a sub dealer for them for many years until he passed.

Most people realize that any tubing can be used in all situations...but it may not be the BEST product for the job. But that comes with experience and trying different things. Off label use is how many cancer drugs were found and how many of todays advances were achieved. But many don't realize that either. LOL

Ben

Thanks Ben for furthering my point. I think anyone seeking to achieve the best production possible should use the BEST product for the job, which is why Spud is looking to use different spouts. After all the money is made in the woods.

[BreezyHill]

Thanks Ben for furthering my point. I think anyone seeking to achieve the best production possible should use the BEST product for the job, which is why Spud is looking to use different spouts. After all the money is made in the woods.

Not a problem Jared, I was all ways taught to help those in need. LOL

IMO Maple producers should take a more progressive role in production and do more testing in their operations of new technologies. In a progressive crop farm the manager will use a large percent of seed that did the best job producing on the farm prior season and a quarter of the acreage is seeded to new varieties. In this production system one is not "carrying all the eggs in one basket" but is trying new products to find the "Best" for his/her farm and their management level.

When you study the spout data from Dr Tim and Steve Childs cleaning study there are a few things that pop out. The biggest being the response of new spouts/clean spouts on production of sap. The same is also true of understanding the physics of vacuum. Steves data eluded to this for those that totally grasped the concept.

The best product for the job is paramount in the production of sap and I agree that many do not realize this. As you said "the money is made in the woods"...the problems lies in where it is spent.

IMO too much is spent on advancments that will not reep the benefits due to the infrastructure is lacking down the line.

IE: Brand new spout on a 10 year old drop...is still going to infect the tap hole.
The latest vacuum pump on an undersized tubing system.
The best designed wet/dry system and an undersized vacuum pump.
Just to scratch the surface.

I love Spud trying a new spout! But don't stop with just one style...try a couple of different ones and compare to see what is"The Best" in his bush. I have three different ones in mine and that is how...for me; the clear currently are the Best when I compare production in the drops on similar trees on similar length of lats on the same tubing systems

We all are doing a great job of sharing our findings just not such a good job of comparing apples with apples so others can also reep the benefits of our findings.

Ever notice how two people can look at the same object and then have two different ways of describing it? That's why " There is more than one way to skin a cat". Doesn't mean that either is the best way just there is more than one way to get the same result in moat applications.

Think of this for a moment: Look at Steve's tubing charts and the difference in loose of vac transfer over short distance. Now imagine the affect of distance on our 5/16 lines. This is why I am wondering the affect one spout will have when the choke point maybe the length of the run on a tubing system; so try different spouts to see if you can replicate the response with all spouts tried.

Ben

In no way am I promoting the skinning of cats for any reason. Please do not pm me that this is cruel. I also have a couple of favorite cats on our farm and enjoy cats. Thank You!

[spud]

BreezyHill I agree with you on trying new product. I am always trying something new in hopes it will better my production. As for skinning cats you go right ahead. I hate cats. :o

Spud

[DrTimPerkins]

We all are doing a great job of sharing our findings just not such a good job of comparing apples with apples so others can also reep the benefits of our findings.

I agree with much of what you said Ben. I think that producers do naturally like to test out different products and see which types work best in their setting. That is great, but everyone should also understand the limitations of that approach and temper their opinions based upon those limitations. If you try a new spout one year, and it does better than the spout you tried the previous year, you might think it was a better spout. However given the large swings in production from year-to-year imposed upon maple sap flow based upon the weather during the season, it is quite difficult to compare across seasons. Similarly, perhaps you retube one section and use one type of spout there, and put another type of spout in another section. Is it the fact that you retubed (so you have great sanitation), that your vacuum is slightly better in that area (because you retubed and got out the leaks and fixed the trouble spots there were impeding vacuum) or is it because that section faced slightly more in one direction (maybe slightly more south) and the sap flow periods for the season favored that direction a little more? It is nearly impossible to tell because there are too many factors that have changed to determine which is having what type of effect (in statistical terms the study is "confounded").

I think that is where the research centers do a better job, since we can:

1) replicate our treatments (have several measurements for each type of spout or whatever we're comparing). Having one pipeline going into one tank at each site gives you a sample size of 1. You cannot truly assess differences (statistically at least) with a sample size of 1 per treatment. You might have 200 taps on one pipeline and 200 on the other, but because all 200 run into one tank each, you effectively have a sample size of 1 per treatment. Maybe you had a leak in one of the pipes (and you didn't measure vacuum or did, but never found it) which reduced the vacuum by 2" Hg on one of those pipes. In that case you'd see about a 10% difference in yield of those two pipes, but it wouldn't have anything to do with the actual comparison (for example, spouts). It would all be experimental error. By replicating the treatments with multiple pipes with individual measurements from each, the error averages out, and the "real" differences due to the treatment can be properly determined.

2) reduce variation due to other factors (spreading out those replicate plots across the sugarbush). In the example above, maybe you had one person tap the section with one spout type and somebody else did the other spout type. Are the differences due to spout, or the differences in how they were tapped. The correct way would be to have multiple plots and make sure that the people tapping did an equal (approximately) number of taps for each type of spout. That way you minimize variation due to tapper. Similarly, you make them use the same tapping bit and tapping hammer and put a stop on so they always tap the same depth for each tree. Scientific studies aim to reduce the variation (experimental error) in the study as much as possible so we can look primarily at the treatment difference. In the example above, if the true treatment difference in the two spouts is+ 5% (one does 5% better than the other), but the error due to the vacuum leak is -10%, then you would (incorrectly) judge that the one spout produced 5% less than the other spout, when in fact, it should produce 5% more.

3) repeat studies, perhaps with very slight differences, or by doing similar studies in different sites (like we did with the UVM/Cornell study you reference) and by doing similar studies across several years to see if the response is consistent across a few different types of seasons and locations. It is possible to always find something weird if you do it only once. If you repeat the study in the same year, or across several years, and see the same type of result repeating itself time after time, you can be fairly certain that the effect is real, and not simply an artifact of the one study.

So I guess you can see that doing research is not easy, and isn't cheap. Doing science the right way is tedious since it requires a great deal of attention to detail, lots of prep-work ahead of time, and is often quite expensive to do. We can do things that producers would never want to try because it might negatively impact their profit. We can separate the two....looking at the response in yield and the cost individually, and in that way determine the net profit. For us, the "net profit" we achieve is in information gained in the study, not in syrup produced. As I've said many times, we can do the crazy things so you don't have to. Sometimes they work, sometimes they fail, but we always learn something.

I guess the one other thing I'd like to point out is that sap yield is definitely NOT the whole story. It would be fairly simple to achieve extremely high sap yields. The flip side of the equation though is cost. It is only by having both sides that you can determine the NET PROFIT (or loss) from some type of change. For example, if you want terrific production you could change out spouts and drops every year and get really good sap yields. You would likely lose money doing that due to the cost of materials and the cost of labor (building the drops and installing them). Therefore replacing drops annually is usually NOT the best approach to achieving the highest net profits.

To summarize all that....while producer research is great and very useful, it absolutely cannot replace well-done scientific research in determining what the true effect of something is. I think the downside is that it takes time to do it right, and it takes money to do it right.

I do agree though that every operation is different. What we try to do is give producers the information to use in their own sugaring operation and let them decide what works best for them. In that vein, we will be releasing a spreadsheet tool soon for producers to estimate what they could get in terms of net profit from different types of replacement and spout/tubing cleaning strategies. Hopefully will be out by the time of the Verona meeting in January 2016.

P.S. I like cats.

[Sunday Rock Maple]

Well said, on the farm here we rarely even state the null, much less fail to reject at a p = 0.05

[DrTimPerkins]

Well said, on the farm here we rarely even state the null, much less fail to reject at a p = 0.05

Nice! That got a chuckle out of me. For those who might don't get the statistical reference....well....that's the point. For those that do....great.

[BreezyHill]

The problem that I have seen many times, is that a product is studied by two groups and two different results are published.

Take one thing that USDA is attacking right now. In the 1950-1070's there were two plants that were being studied and then promoted for living fences on farms in New England states and New York. The slight issue was these plants grew very well. Yesturday I got an email with a funded project to Eradicate these two plants and other Invasive Species. Seems the slight draw back of these two plants, as studies showed, have a very prolific growth curve.

We have done a fairly good job at containing the two; but it is an annual assault and entails 50-100 man hours annually. I was asked what we found worked the best and what had failed. What had failed on our farm was the top recommended treatment but others were also reimbursable. The mechanical removal and spraying of new growth was middle of the list he said. Top of the list was spray and then mechanical removal. I found if you didn't get a 100% kill with the spray you still had to spray the regrowth. This cost over $300 more in spray one year. Our best result was from burning and using old hay and tires to get the heat of the fire high enough to burn off the green plants. Those two fence lines were greened up with grass in a month and the plants never came back. Took all day to burn off that 2500' and the fire dept still visited to see how it was going.

Sucks getting a 4wd 80 hp tractor stuck on top of plants you are trying to bush hog off. Great way for a teenager to learn the limitations of 4wd. lol

To bad the warnings by a few were rejected. Now there are thousands of acres of land that will need a full out assault to be returned to productive status; including woods. Such a shame to see a section of a maple bush that has no maples but is covered by these two plants.

I still feel it is the result in the sugar bush that makes the difference for the producer.

[DrTimPerkins]

The problem that I have seen many times, is that a product is studied by two groups and two different results are published.
.......
I still feel it is the result in the sugar bush that makes the difference for the producer.

Very often it is not that the results are different, but the questions asked were slightly different, or the approaches to answer the question were slightly different, all of which can lead to a difference in results, or a difference in interpretation of those results. Again, that is where it is important that great care be taken in the formulation of the study, the experimental approach to answer the question being asked, and probably most importantly, understanding what inferences can be drawn from the work and the limitations the answers have. That is why we RARELY distribute our raw research results or PowerPoint files. We have had other people try to interpret the results without understanding the limitations, often with incorrect conclusions being made.

I agree that it is the results in the sugarbush that are important. My point is that without adequate controls (so you know exactly what is being compared), good design (so you can actually detect a difference if it exists), (statistical) replication (so you can be sure whether it is real, a fluke, or experimental error), and repetition of an experiment (to eliminate the differences we observe from site-to-site, bush-to-bush, and year-to-year), that it is just as likely that a wrong conclusion will be drawn than a right one.

A few quick examples

1. A producer puts out 2,000 spouts on one part of his bush and 1,500 in another area on a different pump. Each system is run at 26" Hg. Each of those bushes flowing into a different tank. One side produces 0.33 gal/tap, the other 0.35 gal/tap (6% more sap). The producer concludes that the second tap way did a little better, and decides to buy only that spout the next few years. Simple enough....but perhaps that result happened because the gauges were slightly off. Many people don't realize that many gauges can read +/- 3-4% from next gauge, and in actuality, the first gauge was reading 2% low and the second gauge was reading 3% high (total of 5% difference), with the result that you were pulling 1.5" Hg more vacuum on the second bush (30" Hg range x 5% = 1.5" Hg). In that case, the first spout was actually doing better than the first, but your $5 gauge tricked you into thinking the other spout produced a 6% yield improvement while in actuality, if the spouts had been truly compared at the same vacuum level, the second spout would have resulted in a 1.5-8% LOSS in yield compared to the first.

2. Same scenario as above, but you actually get 0.35 gal/tap on both spouts and conclude that there is no difference in the spouts. With the same gauge issue (bush 2 is actually 1.5" Hg higher than bush 1), you would actually be doing WAY better with the first spout if the vacuum level was the same. In this case, we would expect that if we had the same vacuum level in both bushes, the first bush (and spout) would outperform the second bush (and spout) by 7.5-14%.

This same type of issue can arise from very slight differences in tubing age, vacuum level, tree size, site aspect (direction the bush faces), from the person doing the tapping, and countless other variables. As researchers, we take the time and go to great lengths (and expense) to make sure that all these things are compensated for, and that we have replication (to ensure that errors of this type average out), that we are comparing apples-to-apples (or spouts to spouts), and that we do several of the same type of study or repeat it over a couple of years to be sure the results are correct. I don't really expect that the average sugarmaker is going to spend $50-800 for a highly precise and accurate vacuum gauge, but at times that is what it takes to get the right answer.

[madmapler]

This may be a little off topic but as I read these posts I wonder if anyone realizes that skinning a cat is a southern expression with regard to skinning catfish:)

[BreezyHill]

Ah, I like it!!!

Did you know a touch hole is a part of a muzzle loader...also occasionally used in cannons...the point that the burning shaft was touched to, to fire the cannon.

Flash in the pan also referenced a muzzle loader...flint loaders used a smaller grained powder in the pan to ignite the powder in the loader thru the touch hole.

Quite fascinating where many of the old terms came from....great point and thanks!

Ben

[unc23win]

Alright DR. Perkins I will bite what are the best gauges in your experience? The ones filled with liquid? I would actually prefer to have the most accurate gauge at the pump gauges in my experience are anywhere from $5-$40.

Thanks for the post on the comparisons. As a producer I leave the experimenting to others like you. I think we as producers could live or die by the comparisons we make from bush to bush or more importantly year to year. Kind of like that basketball team that loves to shoot 3 pointers when another team scores more because they have a higher shooting percentage because they concentrate on 2 pointers.

[DrTimPerkins]

Alright DR. Perkins I will bite what are the best gauges in your experience? The ones filled with liquid? I would actually prefer to have the most accurate gauge at the pump gauges in my experience are anywhere from $5-$40.

Glycerin-filled gauges tend to be better, especially over time, and especially if subject to pulsation or vibration. The needle in a standard dry gauge can get slammed from max vacuum to atmospheric pressure very abruptly and repeatedly, and is also subject to moisture and freezing inside the gauge. All of these mean that the gauge may drift over time as it gets strained. Glycerin dampens these abrupt changes, and eliminates moisture problems. So generally a glycerin gauge will perform better and remain more accurate (read closer to the true value) over the long run. However that doesn't necessary mean it starts out more accurate or is more precise (readable to a smaller division). That is dictated by the specifications of the actual gauge, which is typically available from the manufacturer.

Depending upon what you're doing, a dry vacuum gauge with a +/- 3-4% full-scale (FS) error can be absolutely fine. If you just want to know that you've got good vacuum, then that is all you need. If you're trying to find out why one line is reading 25" Hg and the one next to it is 25.5" Hg, then a dry gauge is probably wasting your time and you should find something better, or better still, realize that a variation from gauge-to-gauge on the order of 1-2" Hg is not necessarily "real", but could be simply an artifact or limitation of the gauge.

For our work, we will match the gauge to the research being done. If we are just checking overall vacuum, we'll use a standard gauge. If we really want to know the vacuum level well, we'll monitor it with a better gauge, something like a +/- 0.5-1% FS error. Let's say we think that a different spout might produce a 10% increase in sap yield. If we used a standard gauge, with standard gauges, two readings could be different by as much as 8% of FS, or 2.4" Hg (30" HG FS x 8% = 2.4" Hg) and still be considered "right" according to the specs of the gauge. That 2.4" Hg would translate into 12-17% difference in sap yield (since sap increases by 5-7% for each 1" Hg of vacuum). So our treatment effect could easily be totally swamped out and buried in the experimental error (the "noise" in the experimental system), and we could easily make the wrong conclusions by using the wrong gauge. Now if you put enough replicates out there, the chances that all the gauges on one treatment would read low (or high) gets less and less, so at least you start to eliminate the possibility of declaring something better (or worse) than the other due to chance. However you are more likely to conclude there are no differences in the two treatments because the "noise" (variation) is too high. By using better gauges, we can reduce the system "noise" and make more valid comparisons.

If we are doing something in the lab that requires good precision, we'll use a +/- 0.1 FS or better gauge. For most of our pumps, we use a standard glycerin-filled gauge, but also have more accurate and precise electronic recording gauges as well as the Smartrek sensors, both of which record readings as well.

If you really want to know how different your gauges might be, connect them all to a pump fairly close together with a bunch of 5/16" tubing and tees and see which read high or low in comparison to the others. That will help in comparing from mainline to mainline.