Work cut out for us

[markcasper]

http://janeshealthykitchen.com/maple-syrup-paleo/

Whats everyones thoughts on this article?

Found a poster about this at a natural foods store........

[wdchuck]

I thought the article was generally well written and researched until I got to that part about sapling syrup, then the author lost credibility in my mind at least. I don't see this article as having any great impact. Followers of paleo diets who have read the article and then decide to stop buying maple might be what, 10 people, tops?........The bigger issue is the mis-information being spread about sapling syrup and its alleged production. Does Dr Tim have any insight on any actual production?

[Thompson's Tree Farm]

Thanks Mark,
Looks like an article where someone has done only a portion of their research. We all need to get on this and point out the mis- statements while being careful not to create a shouting match.

[DrTimPerkins]

Huge number of technical inaccuracies in the article. Maple syrup has only a small amount of glucose and fructose (a couple of % at most), and is predominantly sucrose. To correct all the problems would require an article about as long as the original.

[n8hutch]

Huge number of technical inaccuracies in the article. Maple syrup has only a small amount of glucose and fructose (a couple of % at most), and is predominantly sucrose. To correct all the problems would require an article about as long as the original. Thanks Dr. Tim, I was thinking that was Factually inaccurate Glucose wise because I have some friends that are Diabetic and can have sweets made with Maple Sugar because it doesn't effect them as much as Cane sugar.

[WESTVIRGINIAMAPLER]

I will let Dr Tim address her response which is listed below:

Hi Brandon,

Thanks for your message. My understanding is that 'sucrose' is a pure sugar consisting of half glucose and half fructose. If that is true, since both of those are sugars, then maple syrup would be almost all sugar. Neither glucose nor fructose are a boon to metabolic health. Your thoughts? Warmest regards and thanks again,

Jane

[markcasper]

Did anyone catch the part about each grade having a slightly "different" sugar content? What...........? many twisted statements in her article.

[GeneralStark]

I will let Dr Tim address her response which is listed below:

Hi Brandon,

Thanks for your message. My understanding is that 'sucrose' is a pure sugar consisting of half glucose and half fructose. If that is true, since both of those are sugars, then maple syrup would be almost all sugar. Neither glucose nor fructose are a boon to metabolic health. Your thoughts? Warmest regards and thanks again,

Jane

Nope. Sucrose is a "disaccharide" which is essentially two monosaccharides (glucose and fructose) bonded together. The fact that maple syrup is primarily sucrose does not imply that it is half glucose and half sucrose as when the two monosaccharides are bonded as sucrose, they are a different compound and are a more "complex" sugar.

It seems as though Jane does not recognize the difference between a monosaccharide and a disaccharide...

[Mark B]

It seems as though Miss Jane is also ignorant that the body must maintain a certain glucose level to function.

[DrTimPerkins]

My understanding is that 'sucrose' is a pure sugar consisting of half glucose and half fructose.

Wrong (in a long list of wrongs). Using that reasoning, humans can breathe water since it is half hydrogen and half oxygen.

[220 maple]

Paleo to Jane's gang is eating how the cave man ate, or as close to it as possible. The native American's are too modern in their view I guess, putting hot rocks in a wooden trough to boil tree sap, what will humans think of next, most likely the head lines on the Bedrock News Sci-Fi Section, probably what Fred and Barney talked about as they peddled their car to the stone quarry! Lol!

Mark 220 Maple

[markcasper]

The native American's are too modern in their view I guess, putting hot rocks in a wooden trough to boil tree sap, what will humans think of next, !

Mark 220 Maple


Don't talk too much like this.....some will use this to justify the safety and use of GMO's and Roundup. :)

[WESTVIRGINIAMAPLER]

I think a note from Dr Perkins with the factual info to her would solve a lot of this. She responded quickly to my contact to her through her website. She just needs education and I don't have the science knowledge Dr Perkins has.

[southfork]

Just remember too, GMO's extend far beyond anything associated with Roundup. It is amazing how many believe that GMO's simply means plants created to resist the effects of Roundup.

[Stiets]

Did anyone catch the part about each grade having a slightly "different" sugar content? What...........? many twisted statements in her article.

I noticed that as well. Seems like lots of misleading information in the article.

[Flat Lander Sugaring]

Huge number of technical inaccuracies in the article. Maple syrup has only a small amount of glucose and fructose (a couple of % at most), and is predominantly sucrose. To correct all the problems would require an article about as long as the original.

so when should we expect your article?

[DrTimPerkins]

so when should we expect your article?

Never. There has already been ample writtten on the subject if only the author took a little time to educate herself before writing such nonsense.

[WESTVIRGINIAMAPLER]

Never. There has already been ample writtten on the subject if only the author took a little time to educate herself before writing such nonsense.

I and think a little education from you to her would solve the issue as you are a PhD and would prob be well received and put an end to it.

[Parker]

Well doc, its sad to me that you dont want to take a little time to educate a missguided vegan with your knowledge. Who knows how many folks take her word as gospel...educating folks about the bennifits an facts regarding maple helps us all in these times of gross overproduction...like many have stated befor,,,marketing is what is needed in the industry.....you sir have that special knowledge and ability to intelagently convey your specilalized knowledge......
Lets all do our best to grow the market,,,
What is the downside?

[DrTimPerkins]

I have done this sort of thing hundreds of times. Most of the time there is no response. Occasionally you get a "thanks" and no change to the story. Very rarely there is a correction. If this particular author wanted to write a good story, she'd have done at least a little homework. If she showed any interest in learning, I'd be happy to help. However I have no interest in spending a few hours writing corrections to that terrible article. It would be a complete waste of time. Been there many times.

[markcasper]

I have done this sort of thing hundreds of times. Most of the time there is no response. Occasionally you get a "thanks" and no change to the story. Very rarely there is a correction.

Yes, but Tim, she personally cited you (not your name if I remember) in her story! I think it would at least be beneficial in this rare example. I am actually quite surprised that she didn't go after oil/gas evaporators. Like Parker said, during this period of surplus any false propaganda certainly isn't going to help matters. It alarms me to see things like this showing up in a natural foods store! BAD, BAD, BAD!

[sap retreiver]

Sometimes you show all the proof in the world and they'll still call white black just cause. Help the helpless screw the clueless. No sense wasting your time on someone that can't help themselves. I wouldn't waste my time on it either

[motowbrowne]

Well doc, its sad to me that you dont want to take a little time to educate a missguided vegan with your knowledge. Who knows how many folks take her word as gospel...educating folks about the bennifits an facts regarding maple helps us all in these times of gross overproduction...like many have stated befor,,,marketing is what is needed in the industry.....you sir have that special knowledge and ability to intelagently convey your specilalized knowledge......
Lets all do our best to grow the market,,,
What is the downside?

There's nothing stopping any one of us from writing an article citing the great work that Dr Tim and others have done on the subject of maple syrup.

My thinking is that the good doctor has his hands full actually doing the research, and that it's our jobs to use that information to convince consumers how great our product is.

Just my .02.

[Parker]

It sounds a little diffrent,,pulls more weight when you have a phd......we all try to do what we can.....lets ease up on the reasearch and focus on marketing......i think we have the production thing down pretty well,,,,,marketing might be something we would want to focus on for a bit....my 2 cents........all the best

[DrTimPerkins]

It sounds a little diffrent,,pulls more weight when you have a phd......we all try to do what we can.....lets ease up on the reasearch and focus on marketing......i think we have the production thing down pretty well,,,,,marketing might be something we would want to focus on for a bit....my 2 cents........all the best

Again, I am not against answering questions and helping to educate folks. My issue, especially in this case, is that the author hasn't shown any interest in educating herself about the issues involved. In those instances, most efforts to inform and educate are pointless. I try to limit the time I spend on pointless endeavors. If any of you want to refer her to me, by all means do so. If she makes an effort to reach out, I'll answer any questions she has. However to blindly try to correct that article (which would take hours) without any sort of certainty that it would do any amount of good is simply a waste of time.

Secondly, your point about stopping production research and starting marketing is a good illustration of the lack of understanding most people have about how research works. First, you have to have a good question and approach to answer it. Second....you need to find funding. This can take a few years. Then, since this is maple and seasons are different, it takes 2-3 years of field research (you have to wait for each season to come) to answer that question. Then there is typically 2-3 years of outreach and education. So the full process takes 5-8 years start to finish. We don't just show up one day and say, "let's stop doing production research and start doing marketing research."

In terms of marketing research.....the issue we are having is that everyone we've asked (and we've asked a lot of people) has a different idea of what marketing is needed, and of what marketing research is needed to support those efforts. There is almost no consensus in the industry about what they want or need (other than "marketing"). Everyone has a different idea. It is very hard to come up with a body of research projects and to start looking for funding (not to mention start doing the work) if we don't know what the industry wants. Since the industry itself funds so little of our work directly (maybe 5%), there will always be a significant lag time between when the need is there and the results are forthcoming. If the industry actually supported maple marketing research, it could start tomorrow. Just tell me where to send the bill?

[southfork]

Good post Dr. Perkins.

[Parker]

Guys,,,i totaly understand all of your points of view.......your reasoning,,and your logic.......unfortunatly, the reality of the situation is we have massive overproduction with more comming on line,,,,as a result the price of syrup will be dropping,,(affecting all of us on this site),,,to try to change this situation we all have to "think outside the box",,,,i know,,i know,,,its hard to invest alot of grey matter into uncharted territory (marketing) when what we are already working on and have been working on,,,what we are used to takes up most of our time and energy........
I was at vt food ventures in hardwick last week (totaly awsome experiance-super nice folks) exploring some ideas i have for a novel product (that has a boatload of maple in it) and got some great feedback,,hoping to move forward with the product soon....lots of details to iron out....if i can do it all of you can too,,,,,,,come on guys,,,one of us can come up with the next big idea for useing mass quantities of syrup in a new way...then we all win..
Tell you what doc....i will start thinking marketing reasearch for you with funding included,,,might take me a while to come up with a good one..but..i will....how about you try to beat me to it..(your smart, im sure you have some ideas)..i have to believe a packer who could bennifit thru added sales would throw down the funds for the reasearch,,(seems like it would be easy to get funding from someone who would directly financialy bennifit),just gotto find the right idea...who is gonna stepup?

How about you southfork,,,you seem clever,,,whats your idea??? How are you contributing to increasing the maple market,,all it takes is one real good idea...
Lets get on it.........and correcting misinformation is the first step.......i will get in touch with paleo "fakenews" jane if no one ealse will.....try my best to be nice about it. ;) LETS GO,!!!!

[southfork]

Good post Parker. The industry has no significant marketing arm, nor the current funding to do it in a big way. Logically, marketing and awareness should come from the industry through maple organizations, much like happens in dairy, pork, poultry and beef. The problem might be one of scale and financing. Marketing is not likely the job for a research institution.

There are some in the industry who nationally market maple and develop maple products, such as Crown Maple and Sweet Tree. And, of course all the producers who pack and advertise, have websites, and/or attend fairs and farm markets speaking directly with consumers. I currently lease a 5,000 tap operation to a bulk barrel producer and therefore do little to nothing to expand markets, not something I am proud of. I make my living another way so am not fully vested in maple, at least yet.
Race

[DrTimPerkins]

Tell you what doc....i will start thinking marketing reasearch for you with funding included,,,might take me a while to come up with a good one..but..i will....how about you try to beat me to it..(your smart, im sure you have some ideas)..i have to believe a packer who could bennifit thru added sales would throw down the funds for the reasearch,,(seems like it would be easy to get funding from someone who would directly financialy bennifit),just gotto find the right idea...who is gonna stepup?

It is not due to a lack of asking folks in the industry for their thoughts....it is simply a matter of finding some consensus to focus around. That is very hard when you have a range from folks marketing farm gate to international mass marketing.

As for packers funding research....they already do a lot of their own marketing. Their aim is not to build a larger market for generic syrup overall, but rather to build a market for their own brands. They really don't like to talk about what it is they do given the proprietary and highly valuable nature of the information they generate and use. Can't blame them.

What is needed, from my viewpoint at least, is to build the recognition of PURE maple syrup (and associated products), and in that way increase consumption (which is pitifully small) through a regional or national level promotional effort. Just a small increase in consumption will do away with the surplus in a real hurry. Why isn't this being done? There is no money to fund it. Canada tends to spend it's promotion $ building demand outside the U.S. Packers spend their $ promoting their products in their own markets. States tend to promote own syrup within their borders. Producers serve their own small areas or clientele. Nobody is focusing on building demand for pure maple syrup overall. IMSI is working on this, but they have no resources for a serious effort. If we want to solve this problem, we need to spend some $. The question is where to get those $. Personally I think the time for a national maple market order has come.

I just put up a poll here http://mapletrader.com/community/showthread.php?30847-Maple-Marketing-Tools-Poll and invite you all to participate.

[Maplewalnut]

Good discussion and I agree consumption is obviously the key. I also agree that it needs a more 'national' push to increase sales. Dropping prices only creates local commodity markets flooded with syrup that benefits no producer and only the very big and/or highly efficient farms will survive. even in an equation independent of the federation and exchange rates, bulk syrup sales will always only be as good as the packer/buyer outreach. If the buyer/packer is not interested in expanding the market share and back end supply increases the price drops. Very simple and predictable formula. The challenge is creating a 'national push' for a 'regional product' in whatever shape it takes.

[PerryFamily]

Could not agree more! I was thinking today about something similar to the "Beef, its what's for dinner" campaign. I think ( don't quote me ) that for every animal sold at the big beef auctions/sales $1 goes directly to marketing. Question is how do we equate that into syrup? Is it a half cent per pound for bulk syrup? Is it a flat rate per producer based on tap count? Is it a fee when the producer joins their states association? How would we make this equitable for small and large producers?? All questions I don't have the answer to.
Also not sure how I feel about a tarrif in Canadian syrup. Lets say consumption does go way up, that syrup may be needed to supply the demand?!?




Again, I am not against answering questions and helping to educate folks. My issue, especially in this case, is that the author hasn't shown any interest in educating herself about the issues involved. In those instances, most efforts to inform and educate are pointless. I try to limit the time I spend on pointless endeavors. If any of you want to refer her to me, by all means do so. If she makes an effort to reach out, I'll answer any questions she has. However to blindly try to correct that article (which would take hours) without any sort of certainty that it would do any amount of good is simply a waste of time.

Secondly, your point about stopping production research and starting marketing is a good illustration of the lack of understanding most people have about how research works. First, you have to have a good question and approach to answer it. Second....you need to find funding. This can take a few years. Then, since this is maple and seasons are different, it takes 2-3 years of field research (you have to wait for each season to come) to answer that question. Then there is typically 2-3 years of outreach and education. So the full process takes 5-8 years start to finish. We don't just show up one day and say, "let's stop doing production research and start doing marketing research."

In terms of marketing research.....the issue we are having is that everyone we've asked (and we've asked a lot of people) has a different idea of what marketing is needed, and of what marketing research is needed to support those efforts. There is almost no consensus in the industry about what they want or need (other than "marketing"). Everyone has a different idea. It is very hard to come up with a body of research projects and to start looking for funding (not to mention start doing the work) if we don't know what the industry wants. Since the industry itself funds so little of our work directly (maybe 5%), there will always be a significant lag time between when the need is there and the results are forthcoming. If the industry actually supported maple marketing research, it could start tomorrow. Just tell me where to send the bill?

[southfork]

http://www.beefboard.org/about/faq_aboutwhopays.asp

[GeneralStark]

This whole idea of collective marketing that you guys are so enamored with is essentially a form of....








Socialism. And that's why the Quebecois have it nailed. They created the federation for a reason.... The VT SUgarmakers Assoc. is the only thing that comes close in terms of collective marketing, and what % of VT producers support it?

In the U.S., maple producers can be lumped into two categories: Those that rely on the bulk market and moan about the prices and overproduction, and those that market and sell their own syrup and value added-products. The latter group is IMO the best situated....

[Parker]

A genral genralizing? I think the issue is a little more complicated,,nuanced than that. I would argue that turning a crop from 750 taps into value added and self marketed products is a little diffrent than doing the same from 20000 taps.......as markets change our approach has to also..there is oppertunity in every situation, we just have to find it
I had to googel "market order".....going to have to think about that for a while.....hate the idea of .gov being involved any more than they are......terrifs.....the rule of unintended consecuences is a bitch,,lots to think about with both options..both seem somewhat negitive and totaly dependent on who is in control of the "system" unlike the free market.......im more in favor of expanding, growing, the free market......as maple saint said at the moment the packers dont have a whole lot of incentive to expand the market...an oversupply means they pay less for their probuct that they sell for a basically set rate so they are making more on what they move creating a higer margine ,,,,,making both ends and the middle to some degree...
I love the idea of marketing "Pure maple"
A research station is not a place to figure out marketing,,,yes,,,,thats not what i am suggesting,,,,,my idea is to do research into new uses for maple and the advantages, health bennifits, other bennifits of maple over other sweeteners...

Lots to ponder,,,,,,,but,,,great discussion

[Hop Kiln Road]

Getting restless in the backseat? Guys, the biggest market for maple is the United States. Yet a Canadian Federation controls the majority of the market share and will continue to do so as long as they are the lowest cost producer. Any thought that increasing collective spending to expand markets will substantially improve the lot of an average US producer is silly. The Federation is drooling that we will help defray their costs of developing an expanded market for their lower cost product. It is the illusion of free markets.

[Parker]

Until you put a 20% terrif on can. Syrup.........just a thought

[DrTimPerkins]

Until you put a 20% terrif on can. Syrup.........just a thought

Alternatively, imported product can also be subject to the market order as well as domestically produced syrup. Considerable $ are already being spent (by packers mostly) to market syrup in the U.S., and a good share of that is Canadian syrup. To my knowledge, there isn't a lot of Canadian effort and $ spent marketing in the U.S. compared to what they spend developing new and expanding markets overseas.

With a market order, the legislation to allow it is either on a state basis or federal basis, but the spending on marketing, research, promotion is dictated by a board composed of people involved in the industry. Essentially the industry writes the rules, the governing body approves them (or not) and the industry votes to accept or reject the imposition of the order.

[Hop Kiln Road]

Before we discuss economic systems, lets look at some numbers.

According to the Federation, in 2015 86.7% of their production was exported. 64% of their exports went to the US, or 55% of their total production. Those 2015 Federation exports to the US represent 157% of the USDA reported 2015 US production, or 61% of the US market.

And take into account that the Federation production exports are not the entire Quebec production exports or let alone Canadian production exports. And, since 2015, Canadian production has increased faster than US production.

Tariffs right now are a low probability and the likelihood of a tariff on maple imports is zero. So the simple fact is the US is under producing because our maple leadership allowed us to muscled out of our own market.

[mudr]

So the simple fact is the US is under producing because our maple leadership allowed us to muscled out of our own market.

My understanding is that the maple trade imbalance is due to the relative values of the US and Canadian dollars. Since the Canadian dollar is significantly cheaper, they can export and drive our market pricing. That's not muscling, that is the free market.

[markcasper]

The idea of robbing us maple producers for advertising will be a sham just like the mandatory checkoffs for beef, milk, and grain. It is outright steeling! The concept idea is good, but money always corrupts and this money ends up going to people for jobs that are not needed all in the name of "promotion." Just like the WMMB, Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board. What an udder failure! They get a government mandate to take so many cents out of the milk check to advertise "Wisconsin", all the while if only 1/4 or 1/3 of the milk product is Wisconsin produced, the rest can come from God knows where and be labeled as "Wisconsin". And the milk that comes from out of state gets a free advertising lunch. What a joke!

Along with national milk producers, another legally corrupt entity! And unfortunately, groups like farm bureau and farmers union started out good, but really are just a spokesman for big ag. They talk out of both sides of their mouth and convince farmers they have to go along with this or they will fail. And because of peer pressure, most go along with it because "my neighbor belongs" type of thing. Its nothing more than a downward spiral to the bottom.

[markcasper]

http://www.beefboard.org/about/faq_aboutwhopays.asp

What a complete sham! Meanwhile, all the beef that comes into this country not on the hoof gets a free pass. Complete steeling from the US Farmer!!!!!!

[GeneralStark]

"So the simple fact is the US is under producing because our maple leadership allowed us to muscled out of our own market."

Who is "our maple leadership"? Are you saying there are no market forces at work here?

[markcasper]

One marketing idea that needs to be addressed: How can the US packers be allowed to purchase Canadian syrup which has been produced using isopropyl alcohol?
The sale of such syrup should not be allowed into the states unless it has been determined that these methods were not used. Why is noone making an issue of this? To me, it would be an excellent marketing tool to promote US product. I guess Maple Grove is getting most, if not all their syrup from Canada....one semi load per day now. They would not be able to advertise their syrup being free from isopropyl because of their "product of Canada" sticker.

[PerryFamily]

One marketing idea that needs to be addressed: How can the US packers be allowed to purchase Canadian syrup which has been produced using isopropyl alcohol?
The sale of such syrup should not be allowed into the states unless it has been determined that these methods were not used. Why is noone making an issue of this? To me, it would be an excellent marketing tool to promote US product. I guess Maple Grove is getting most, if not all their syrup from Canada....one semi load per day now. They would not be able to advertise their syrup being free from isopropyl because of their "product of Canada" sticker.

Ive often wondered this!
Same goes for defoamer. I was under the impression that Canadian organic producer can use Atmos defoamer where we here in the us can't. I could be wrong on this too but that's my impression

[Louie]

Looks like they can even use isopropyl to clean lines when making organic syrup. Why not make the claim that US syrup is made to higher standards? Vermont does that by saying they make theirs to higher standards than the rest of the states.

[Clinkis]

It's interesting how this conversation has become blaming Canada for all the woes in the maple industry. This seems like an easy thing to do lately. There are lots of issues and inequalities on both sides of the border with respect to dealing with commodities and their trade across the borders. Increased demand and higher prices are obviously beneficial to everyone in the industry regardless of what side of the border you're on. I would rather see international cooperation to work on these issues instead of finger pointing.

[Parker]

Thats a great idea,,lets have all worldwide producers pay one cent per gallon thats sold on the bulk market to go to an indapendent world wide marketing firm to mass market syrup as a healthier more eco friendly pysicaly bennificial sweetener...the federation ought to cover their producers as they already bleed them pretty well.....everyone bennifits....one big happy maple familey
Obviously we need bigger markets,,,,,,,,,,,,,folks would not be so concerned if the crown had not just opened up 8 million new taps,,,,,,,kinda like the saudies when they keep production of oil high and price low to crush the bakken shale and can. Tar sands producers......
There is also all kinds of new taps going in in the u.s (wicked smart!!!)
Im not complaining or blaming,,,but if we dont want to be getting 1.80 next year we all need to try to come up with a big idea,,,,,obviously the folks marketing now are not up to the job

[Sinzibuckwud]

We need market research before we market.
What demographic of people in each part of the country consume the most maple products? Which products are being consumed the most\least? ext ext.
Then we know what markets to pursue and which to leave.
Which brings us back to the root of the problem... Who's coughing up the cash... Market research ain't free.
Edit to add
I'm sure some of the big packers\distributors have some of this information in some regard and have paid well for it in one way or another.

[spud]

Next years price has already been set for $1.83LB. It could be a great season or a terrible season and the price will still be $1.83. It's going to take two poor seasons in a row to see the price jump a bit.

Spud

[southfork]

Quote from above..."Who's coughing up the cash... Market research ain't free".

[markcasper]

I would rather see international cooperation to work on these issues instead of finger pointing. In my opinion, due to maple only being produce in such a small area of the world, international cooperation will almost always favor the country with the most government involvement. Isopropyl use in Canada is not a "finger point", it is a fact! Either legalize for use in the US, or Canada needs to ban the use of it in maple - its that simple. There is nothing wrong about making it a selling point for my syrup. There also would be nothing wrong about discrediting Canadian syrup because of this practice and to help keep it on their side of the border. "Make America Great Again"!

[BAP]

In my opinion, due to maple only being produce in such a small area of the world, international cooperation will almost always favor the country with the most government involvement. Isopropyl use in Canada is not a "finger point", it is a fact! Either legalize for use in the US, or Canada needs to ban the use of it in maple - its that simple. There is nothing wrong about making it a selling point for my syrup. There also would be nothing wrong about discrediting Canadian syrup because of this practice and to help keep it on their side of the border. "Make America Great Again"!
Well said, we shouldn't be importing food products that have been produced with chemicals illegal to use in the US.

[minehart gap]

It seems to me that syrup makers are (at least on here) united that there needs to be increased market areas in order to deal with the increased syrup production. I have also read that 55% of all Canadian Maple Syrup is imported into the United States and now that our fellow producers north of the border are not only already producing more syrup than is within there "quota" and that the overage is sold "blackmarket" to American packagers but they also are installing 5 millions additional taps as allowed by the federation.

Is it possible for American Maple Syrup producers to produce enough to satisfy the American consumer? If yes, in my opinion, a tariff needs to be imposed in order to make American producers (that must comply with more stringent criteria) more competitive. It seems that Canada is, in essence, fixing the market for American producers. If no, American producers need to pick it up. I know that I am one of them.

All in all, I believe that a broad Maple Syrup introduction and education program is needed in order to increase demand. I have no idea how to initiate this or to pay for it. My reasoning is that every person that I have introduced to maple syrup has gone on to purchase some, often repeatedly.

[markcasper]

It seems to me that syrup makers are (at least on here) united that there needs to be increased market areas in order to deal with the increased syrup production. I have also read that 55% of all Canadian Maple Syrup is imported into the United States and now that our fellow producers north of the border are not only already producing more syrup than is within there "quota" and that the overage is sold "blackmarket" to American packagers but they also are installing 5 millions additional taps as allowed by the federation.

Is it possible for American Maple Syrup producers to produce enough to satisfy the American consumer? If yes, in my opinion, a tariff needs to be imposed in order to make American producers (that must comply with more stringent criteria) more competitive. It seems that Canada is, in essence, fixing the market for American producers. If no, American producers need to pick it up. I know that I am one of them.

All in all, I believe that a broad Maple Syrup introduction and education program is needed in order to increase demand. I have no idea how to initiate this or to pay for it. My reasoning is that every person that I have introduced to maple syrup has gone on to purchase some, often repeatedly.

Excellent post!!

[maple maniac65]

I have been attending the IMSI/NAMSC for the past 7 years. This question has been posed before about limiting the amount of Quebec maple syrup in the USA. Their answer was then we will not vacation there or shop there. We have gotten along for years in this industry. It seems to me the problems of expansion did not surface until our government discovered maple syrup and started with the cost sharing programs, csa, and the lowering of land tax if you were involved in sugaring. Just a few examples.

It comes to mind one should think before they jump.

[Thompson's Tree Farm]

We have less than 1% of the US sweetener market and currently do not produce enough to satisfy that demand without the import of Canadian maple syrup. Overall demand for maple syrup has been expanding every year. Federation producers currently pay an amount per pound (I think 14 cents but I'd have to look it up) for overhead and marketing. Our competition is not Quebec or other maple producers. It is other sweeteners. We have certain advantages (healthier, more minerals, etc) in the market that other sweeteners do not have and we need to get that message to consumers to encourage them to use maple or more maple. Marketing will not happen without us paying for it (I wish it wasn't so). Good marketing takes time, money and patience. We are discussing it and that is a start.

[PerryFamily]

We have less than 1% of the US sweetener market and currently do not produce enough to satisfy that demand without the import of Canadian maple syrup. Overall demand for maple syrup has been expanding every year. Federation producers currently pay an amount per pound (I think 14 cents but I'd have to look it up) for overhead and marketing. Our competition is not Quebec or other maple producers. It is other sweeteners. We have certain advantages (healthier, more minerals, etc) in the market that other sweeteners do not have and we need to get that message to consumers to encourage them to use maple or more maple. Marketing will not happen without us paying for it (I wish it wasn't so). Good marketing takes time, money and patience. We are discussing it and that is a start.


Agree 100%
Thanks for posting

[minehart gap]

maple maniac65, your statement "It seems to me the problems of expansion did not surface until our government discovered maple syrup and started with the cost sharing programs, csa, and the lowering of land tax if you were involved in sugaring. Just a few examples." I have not seen much affect with in my area, however that being said and our government already being involved with a financial interest and the recent tariff on Canadian softwood lumber and threat of dairy tariff's I would not be surprised to see increased import costs for syrup.

Please keep in mind that, as stated in my first post, I only think that a tariff should be implemented if American producers can supply the American markets and for the purpose of making the American producer more competitive due to the more stringent production criteria. If American producers can not satisfy American consumption, we need imports without additional penalty but perhaps quality control ensuring that all maple syrup sold in America is produced under the same criteria.

Thompson's Tree Farm your statement "We have less than 1% of the US sweetener market and currently do not produce enough to satisfy that demand without the import of Canadian maple syrup. Overall demand for maple syrup has been expanding every year." I believe that there are 2 concepts going on there. Is there an accurate account of the percentage of American produced syrup compared to American consumed syrup (all maple syrup of course). Also, is the 1% of sweeteners statistic comparing all maple syrup or only American produced maple syrup to the sweetener market? I must admit that I had not thought of the market in that prospective. I have only thought about it from the expansion aspect without consideration to what it would be replacing. Interesting.

I have recently seen a post on here that I believe could expand the sale of maple syrup. http://mapletrader.com/community/showthread.php?30682-Program-on-sugaring . I maintain that expanded education, introduction and awareness of our awesome product along with access will be the answer to the supply/demand dilemma.

[Hop Kiln Road]

So yes, in April the US put a 20% tariff on Canadian softwood imports. By June, the Canadian increased their support to their softwood industry by $642 million US to offset the tariff. Right? $642 million Us in a matter of weeks to protect their market share.

Now let's say the global annual maple production is 20,000,000 gallons and its value its $20/gal so the crop is worth $400 million. And the Canadian produce 80% of the crop and control 65% of the US market. Think they're going to protect their market share? Think they're going to further increase production?

The idea of tariffing Canadian syrup will work about as well as the idea of telling Quaker Oats the definition of maple.

[Louie]

Do they use isopropyl to keep those production numbers up?

[markcasper]

So yes, in April the US put a 20% tariff on Canadian softwood imports. By June, the Canadian increased their support to their softwood industry by $642 million US to offset the tariff. Right? $642 million Us in a matter of weeks to protect their market share.

Now let's say the global annual maple production is 20,000,000 gallons and its value its $20/gal so the crop is worth $400 million. And the Canadian produce 80% of the crop and control 65% of the US market. Think they're going to protect their market share? Think they're going to further increase production?

The idea of tariffing Canadian syrup will work about as well as the idea of telling Quaker Oats the definition of maple.

Your not telling the whole story here......the tariff on softwoods was partially put on in retaliation for the dairy fiasco that the Canadians stuck the US with which had a very big impact here in Wisconsin. So what if they help their people out? We all know its socialist up there! They can't give out money forever, there is not that many people up there.

I say give it to them and slap a big tariff on them. There would be no problem producing enough syrup in this country. We have the trees. It wouldn't happen overnight, but it wouldn't take long.

The problem isn't with Quaker Oats, its with our own corrupted FDA!!!!! Abolish that criminal group and I bet it wouldn't say "maple" on the box much longer.

[markcasper]

This question has been posed before about limiting the amount of Quebec maple syrup in the USA. Their answer was then we will not vacation there or shop there.

So what!!!!

[DrTimPerkins]

Do they use isopropyl to keep those production numbers up?

Isopropyl alcohol is legal to use in maple syrup production (for cleaning tubing) throughout Canada.

[BAP]

Isopropyl alcohol is legal to use in maple syrup production (for cleaning tubing) throughout Canada.
Yes, but it is not Legal in the United States so we shouldn't allow syrup to be imported that was made using it.

[BreezyHill]

BAP that is a very good question!

But this is the reason that US Beef stayed here and was not imported to china until they changed their stance on the use of Bovatec and Rumensin. Is a product that makes one type of rumen flora grow better than another an antibiotic? I say no since it does not kill one and not the other as an antibiotic does.

But if we use your brilliant reasoning approach we would not import from other countries much of the food we currently consume...due to the use of herbicides and pesticides that the US does not allow or only allows at rates that are below that of other countries.

Great Point none the less!!!

[Ontario Ian]

We have less than 1% of the US sweetener market and currently do not produce enough to satisfy that demand without the import of Canadian maple syrup. Overall demand for maple syrup has been expanding every year. Federation producers currently pay an amount per pound (I think 14 cents but I'd have to look it up) for overhead and marketing. Our competition is not Quebec or other maple producers. It is other sweeteners. We have certain advantages (healthier, more minerals, etc) in the market that other sweeteners do not have and we need to get that message to consumers to encourage them to use maple or more maple. Marketing will not happen without us paying for it (I wish it wasn't so). Good marketing takes time, money and patience. We are discussing it and that is a start.

a prime example would be Pepsi, back when syrup hit $4!! syrup was to expensive so they went back to corn syrup, to the best of my knowledge they never came back. markets don't like big fluctuations, a type of supply management system for the rest of us might not be a bad scenario. I'd rather sell bulk at these prices than like in the early '90s when you might have to just dump it out if you can't find a buyer

[Ontario Ian]

So yes, in April the US put a 20% tariff on Canadian softwood imports. By June, the Canadian increased their support to their softwood industry by $642 million US to offset the tariff. Right? $642 million Us in a matter of weeks to protect their market share.

Now let's say the global annual maple production is 20,000,000 gallons and its value its $20/gal so the crop is worth $400 million. And the Canadian produce 80% of the crop and control 65% of the US market. Think they're going to protect their market share? Think they're going to further increase production?

The idea of tariffing Canadian syrup will work about as well as the idea of telling Quaker Oats the definition of maple.

the price of a 2x4x8' spruce went from $2.11 to $4.13 after that terrif, lumber has doubled around home, U.S.A. syrup price is 30% less, but for us everything is 30% more in canada. Aside from syrup, not to much is made in canada these days, so most things are imported from the states and due to the dollar situation, up here everything has become very pricey.

[wmick]

the price of a 2x4x8' spruce went from $2.11 to $4.13 after that terrif, lumber has doubled around home, .....
Hmm?
I hadn't heard or followed the lumber prices changing like that.. I'm trying to understand why.. I would have thought that the tariff would have decreased exports (demand)... and in-turn created an excess supply... Lowering prices as they try to dump inventories. Do you have an explanation to why it drove prices up instead of down?

[Parker]

Also with the can. Govt. Providing $645 million to lumder companies affected by the tariffs why woul can prices for lumber go up?

[Clinkis]

Feel free to explain why it happens but it did. Almost Everything in Canada is based on US prices with the exception of Maple Syrup I think. When US dollar goes up in comparison to the Can dollar then pretty much everything goes up accordingly. Rather annoying.....

https://www.homedepot.ca/en/home/p.2x4x104-58-spf-select-stud.1000427064.html

[GeneralStark]

Looks like the rise in lumber costs in CA are due to producers passing on additional costs from tariffs to the consumer.

"Recent increases in lumber prices support the notion that Canadian producers will be able to pass along a portion of the cost to consumers."

from: http://madisonsreport.com/lumber-prices/

[wmick]

Isopropyl alcohol is legal to use in maple syrup production (for cleaning tubing) throughout Canada.

http://www.uvm.edu/~pmrc/Do%20Not%20Use%20IPA%20as%20Maple%20Sanitizer%20in %20U.S..pdf

Dr. Tim - I've been doing a little research, trying to learn why IPA is permitted in Canada, but not in the USA.. I'm not coming up with any clear answers, other than the fact that the EPA hasn't approved it. (but not sure if it's been "disapproved" or just not approved "yet") I'd like to know.. Are you able to point me towards any information, comparing IPA to other commonly used or approved sanitizers... in terms of detrimental effects to health, environment, safety, etc?

[DrTimPerkins]

There is no simple resource I can point you to that will say that IPA cannot be used because of any specific reason. That isn't the way the system works. Similarly, there is little validity in trying to compare the U.S. and Canadian systems.....they are extremely different.

Instead, you have to first accept that, for this particular type of use, the product (IPA) is being used to "protect" the tubing system, which can mean that it lengthens the lifespan of use for the material. Because of that, IPA is considered a "pesticide" and would be regulated by the EPA and would NOT be regulated by the USDA (which many might assume and would seem logical since it is used in concert with a food product and food manufacturing materials -- but no...in the U.S. if it isn't used in food or directly in the manufacture of food it isn't part of USDA). For many pesticides that have been used for ages, they were grandfathered in. However most must undergo a review by the EPA for safety before being "permitted" for use. These permits are very specific for certain uses and doses and ways of use and materials used in (just read the caution and use labels on any pesticide). Companies manufacturing and selling such products must register their products with the EPA via an application process involving showing such use is effective and safe. It is not a requirement that the government show it is unsafe. The onus is on the company wishing to sell the product. Obviously, going through the application and permitting process is time consuming and expensive, with no guarantee of success. To date, no company wishing to sell IPA as a maple tubing sanitizer has gone through the process of permitting IPA in the U.S.

So, with all that, and weeks spent researching all the ins and outs of this, it was still somewhat confusing to us, so we wrote to the EPA asking for a definitive statement. Their response was (in part): "An IPA product would need to be registered with the EPA and include directions for use on maple tubing systems (or a similar type of use site) in order for it to be a legal use of the pesticide." At that point I stopped beating my head against this particular wall and accepted that. The ball is now in the hands of any company wishing to pursue an application for IPA use in maple tubing.

[amaranth farm]

Radio Silence.

[wmick]

Interesting... Thanks for the response... Much clearer to me now. You've got the USDA, EPA and I presume, the FDA all kind of crossing paths... makes it somewhat confusing, knowing that it is widely used in the sanitizing of food equipment.


Instead, you have to first accept that, for this particular type of use, the product (IPA) is being used to "protect" the tubing system, which can mean that it lengthens the lifespan of use for the material. Because of that, IPA is considered a "pesticide" and would be regulated by the EPA and would NOT be regulated by the USDA (which many might assume and would seem logical since it is used in concert with a food product and food manufacturing materials -- but no...in the U.S. if it isn't used in food or directly in the manufacture of food it isn't part of USDA).

This part I found the hardest to wrap my head around because of a couple areas of my misinterpretation... I would would be tempted to debate the following... - Is the tubing used "in concert with" or "directly in" food production? and.... Are we "protecting" or "sanitizing" the tubing?

[DrTimPerkins]

Interesting... Thanks for the response... Much clearer to me now. You've got the USDA, EPA and I presume, the FDA all kind of crossing paths... makes it somewhat confusing, knowing that it is widely used in the sanitizing of food equipment.

Actually, I don't believe IPA is used a lot in food equipment sanitization except in certain food manufacturing processes involving packaging. It is used a bit in medical sanitization.


This part I found the hardest to wrap my head around because of a couple areas of my misinterpretation... I would would be tempted to debate the following... - Is the tubing used "in concert with" or "directly in" food production? and.... Are we "protecting" or "sanitizing" the tubing?

Good luck debating with the EPA, FDA, and USDA. Things in those realms don't always make intuitive sense, but usually have some basis in fact buried deep in layers of regulation and historical decision-making.