Season underway

[TheMapleNews]

Hi Traders,

Had a nice visit yesterday with the Holscher family in Hobart, N.Y. who decided to start their season in November. This isn't a "fall tapping" situation where they're planning on two separate seasons. This is the very early start of what they hope to be a very long season, until April. They've made 500 gallons already...

https://www.themaplenews.com/video/on-the-scene-fall-sugaring-at-roxbury-mountain-maple/50/

[unc23win]

I really enjoyed the video and I am interested as I am sure many others are to find out how their season ends up. I looked up Hobart and I am about 3 hours almost directly southwest from there just over the border in PA. With the exception of Monday this week has been too cold here for any sap runs.

[220 maple]

If this works, maybe the big producers in Canada could start early? October after the leaves fall, would help solve the world wide shortage of maple syrup, stabilize the bulk price! As my Friend and Bulk syrup buyer Henry Breeneman used to say you can make money at 2 dollars a pound!

Mark 220 Maple

[amaranth farm]

Radio Silence.

[TheMapleNews]

Yes, they plan to keep the same holes going through April. This is done through sanitation and keeping high vacuum on the lines pretty much 24/7. Lots of sugarmakers have had success tapping in December and capturing January runs, and then enjoying good production through April. The Holschers just got a month and a half head start. We will check back with them and see how they did...

[Walling's Maple Syrup]

This year we had perfect weather in this area for tapping in November and getting sap out of the same holes through the end of the spring season. We had no real "warm" weather in November. By keeping the system leak-free, I have no doubt the tapholes will produce into April. The years where you wouldn't are the years where it warms into the sixties and seventies in November. This is the only reason I have not tapped in November. This was the perfect year to do it.
Neil

[berkshires]

Paging DrTimPerkins...

I'm curious to hear Dr Tim's (and other experts please feel free to weigh in as well) opinion on this. Assuming you can in fact keep the taphole open and all the way from November to April... should you? Does it put any stress on the trees to lose that much more stored sugar? Did people do this back in the years (way before my time) of paraformaldehyde? If so, was there any strain on the trees from doing so?

[DrTimPerkins]

I'm curious to hear Dr Tim's (and other experts please feel free to weigh in as well) opinion on this. Assuming you can in fact keep the taphole open and all the way from November to April... should you? Does it put any stress on the trees to lose that much more stored sugar? Did people do this back in the years (way before my time) of paraformaldehyde? If so, was there any strain on the trees from doing so?

Ask me again in about 3 years. :)

To preface this post, note that our previous research has shown that the spring season has been moving earlier in the calendar year for at least the past 50 yrs. Models we have done indicate that the fall season (which most people ignore) is corresponding moving later and later in the calendar year. At some point, it is possible that these two very distinct seasons will merge into one (at least initially) longer season. At this point however, the two seasons are still separated by a fairly long period which traditionally could not be spanned -- a taphole would not be viable (produce sap) for that length of time (November through April) without experiencing a good amount of "taphole drying" and loss of yield. However, given all we've learned over the past 10-15 yrs about taphole sanitation, we've broadened the length of time a taphole is viable enough to make it worth investigating.

Note that this is a study I've been wanting to do for about the past 10 years. Other things kept getting in the way (funding being one). However, we were very fortunate to have just received funding to do it, thus this happens to be the last "major" study I initiate before I retire.

To start, we selected three groups of well matched trees. All will be on vacuum. Some we tapped in November. Of these, some will be let as, some will be drilled 1" deeper, and the rest will be reamed larger (they started at 1/4" rather than 5/16") and also drilled 1" deeper, as we get closer to the "normal" sugaring season. A forth group of those trees will have tubing to the first taphole cut and capped and a 2nd hole drilled 2" above the original taphole (to reduce adding more stained wood from a 2nd taphole). For all treatments that are changed, a new spout will be added when we redrill/ream.

Another set of trees will be tapped in mid-January. A subset of those will be drilled deeper in the spring. Another subset will be reamed and drilled deeper.

A final set of trees will be tapped at the more traditional time.

Altogether that makes 8 treatments, with 10 trees per treatment. Periodically we will measure sap yields and sugar contents. Study will be repeated for 3 years to account for seasonal variability. If you've seen the recent (December 2017) Vermont Maple Mainline https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Agriculture/Maple-Mainline-December-2017.pdf the photo on the front cover shows just one section of the chambers we are using for that study. In total we have over 80 of those large chambers....research ain't always cheap.

Much of our research on climate change over the past several years leading up to this project has been funded donations from Tonewood https://www.tonewoodmaple.com/ The project I describe above is primarily funded by the USDA ACER ACCESS program and is also sponsored by Lapierre Equipment Co. (by a generous reduction in price for the chambers).

As far as "how much is too much"....that's a different question altogether (but related). We've started on that one a while back. We finished Yr 4 of a total of at least 5 Yrs...more likely it'll end up being 10 Yrs or more before the project is completely done (by which time I will be long gone), but we hope to release the 5 Yr results at the end of 2018 or beginning of 2019. So once again, I'll have to answer with "ask again" next year. We have a major publication planned that will summarize all our work (about 8 individual, but related projects) on what we call our "Sustainability" project. Should come out in about 2 Yrs.

So hopefully that illustrates that we tend to plan ahead a fair bit. You'll just have to stay tuned.

[berkshires]

Ask me again in about 3 years. :)

To preface this post, note that our previous research has shown that the spring season has been moving earlier in the calendar year for at least the past 50 yrs. Models we have done indicate that the fall season (which most people ignore) is corresponding moving later and later in the calendar year. At some point, it is possible that these two very distinct seasons will merge into one (at least initially) longer season. At this point however, the two seasons are still separated by a fairly long period which traditionally could not be spanned -- a taphole would not be viable (produce sap) for that length of time (November through April) without experiencing a good amount of "taphole drying" and loss of yield. However, given all we've learned over the past 10-15 yrs about taphole sanitation, we've broadened the length of time a taphole is viable enough to make it worth investigating.

Note that this is a study I've been wanting to do for about the past 10 years. Other things kept getting in the way (funding being one). However, we were very fortunate to have just received funding to do it, thus this happens to be the last "major" study I initiate before I retire.

To start, we selected three groups of well matched trees. All will be on vacuum. Some we tapped in November. Of these, some will be let as, some will be drilled 1" deeper, and the rest will be reamed larger (they started at 1/4" rather than 5/16") and also drilled 1" deeper, as we get closer to the "normal" sugaring season. A forth group of those trees will have tubing to the first taphole cut and capped and a 2nd hole drilled 2" above the original taphole (to reduce adding more stained wood from a 2nd taphole). For all treatments that are changed, a new spout will be added when we redrill/ream.

Another set of trees will be tapped in mid-January. A subset of those will be drilled deeper in the spring. Another subset will be reamed and drilled deeper.

A final set of trees will be tapped at the more traditional time.

Altogether that makes 8 treatments, with 10 trees per treatment. Periodically we will measure sap yields and sugar contents. Study will be repeated for 3 years to account for seasonal variability. If you've seen the recent (December 2017) Vermont Maple Mainline https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Agriculture/Maple-Mainline-December-2017.pdf the photo on the front cover shows just one section of the chambers we are using for that study. In total we have over 80 of those large chambers....research ain't always cheap.

Much of our research on climate change over the past several years leading up to this project has been funded donations from Tonewood https://www.tonewoodmaple.com/ The project I describe above is primarily funded by the USDA ACER ACCESS program and is also sponsored by Lapierre Equipment Co. (by a generous reduction in price for the chambers).

As far as "how much is too much"....that's a different question altogether (but related). We've started on that one a while back. We finished Yr 4 of a total of at least 5 Yrs...more likely it'll end up being 10 Yrs or more before the project is completely done (by which time I will be long gone), but we hope to release the 5 Yr results at the end of 2018 or beginning of 2019. So once again, I'll have to answer with "ask again" next year. We have a major publication planned that will summarize all our work (about 8 individual, but related projects) on what we call our "Sustainability" project. Should come out in about 2 Yrs.

So hopefully that illustrates that we tend to plan ahead a fair bit. You'll just have to stay tuned.

Cool! I Hope you'll let us know here when you have results to share!

One question - I'm not clear on whether the "fall through spring" experiment you talked about a lot in your post is the same as the "how much is too much" experiment. Are you saying you're doing the "fall through spring" experiment over what will wind up being 10 years to see if you have a dropoff in production compared to normally tapped trees? Or is there some other experiment to look at the "how much is too much" question?

I guess to put my question in a nutshell - it sounds like the experiments you're talking about are answering the question "To what degree can we actually do one extra-long season". The question I have is "With sustainability in mind, to what degree should we do one extra-long season".

[markcasper]

Will sugarmakers start tapping less trees if this becomes common practice?

[DrTimPerkins]

Two different studies. One is to examine how long we can keep a taphole (or taphole affected wood area) productive. The second study is looking at whether sap extraction under gravity or high yield methods affects tree growth and health. It is often better (cheaper, easier, and easier to understand the results) to study individual things first before doing more complicated experiments.

[DrTimPerkins]

Will sugarmakers start tapping less trees if this becomes common practice?

It is better to do the study first and examine the results before trying to interpret the results and predict the effects.

[berkshires]

Two different studies. One is to examine how long we can keep a taphole (or taphole affected wood area) productive. The second study is looking at whether sap extraction under gravity or high yield methods affects tree growth and health. It is often better (cheaper, easier, and easier to understand the results) to study individual things first before doing more complicated experiments.

Sure, that makes perfect sense. I guess my only further comment is that I would be extremely curious to see the longer term affects on any trees used by the first study that successfully produced for longer than a "standard" season. In other words, sure, tapping a tree once in the fall and again in the spring is bad for the tree, because it causes twice the amount of trunk to be damaged. But if you could pull that amount of sugar out of a single taphole (or a slightly deeper one, or one two inches higher), would you still see the tree decline, because you're taking out too much of the sugar it needs for the next growing season?

[buckeye gold]

It is better to do the study first and examine the results before trying to interpret the results and predict the effects.

Awww come on Dr. Tim surely you've never seen bias in research papers :rolleyes: The next best result is "we need to do more research".

Please don't think I'm implying anything about your work, your group has all my respect as quality researchers, but I saw a career full of crap research built on simply getting people graduate degrees and acquiring self-sustaining funding, period. Your reply says a lot about the integrity of your work!

[DonMcJr]

Was there a follow up on if their taps produced still during the traditional season?

[DrTimPerkins]

I guess my only further comment is that I would be extremely curious to see the longer term affects on any trees used by the first study that successfully produced for longer than a "standard" season. In other words, sure, tapping a tree once in the fall and again in the spring is bad for the tree, because it causes twice the amount of trunk to be damaged. But if you could pull that amount of sugar out of a single taphole (or a slightly deeper one, or one two inches higher), would you still see the tree decline, because you're taking out too much of the sugar it needs for the next growing season?

Although I understand the impulse to want to know more information quickly, you do realize that you're asking us to start a second study based upon the presumed results of two currently ongoing studies that have not been completed? We try not to do that much....it is too easy to spend a lot of time, energy, and scarce resources (ie, $) going down blind alleys that lead nowhere. Given that we have at least a few years (and perhaps 5 more years) to finish up the "long-term" study, and just started the other study to look at the viability of tapholes from fall-to-spring a few months ago, and like to have at least 2-3 yrs under our belts for new, novel research, I think we need to finish up those projects before moving on to this one. Unless you happen to have about $0.5M burning a hole in your pocket you want to give me?

[DrTimPerkins]

Awww come on Dr. Tim surely you've never seen bias in research papers

Sure...happens all the time, but it is best to try to avoid the temptation. And yes, in many cases, we have a pretty good idea what the general results will be before we start any study. That is often because we've done prior research of a preliminary or related nature, sometimes to figure out the variability and required sample sizes so we can design the study better to answer the question(s) we are asking, to remove sources of variability, and to eliminate bias wherever we can.

[berkshires]

Although I understand the impulse to want to know more information quickly, you do realize that you're asking us to start a second study based upon the presumed results of two currently ongoing studies that have not been completed? We try not to do that much....it is too easy to spend a lot of time, energy, and scarce resources (ie, $) going down blind alleys that lead nowhere. Given that we have at least a few years (and perhaps 5 more years) to finish up the "long-term" study, and just started the other study to look at the viability of tapholes from fall-to-spring a few months ago, and like to have at least 2-3 yrs under our belts for new, novel research, I think we need to finish up those projects before moving on to this one. Unless you happen to have about $0.5M burning a hole in your pocket you want to give me?

Respectfully, I'm not asking you to do anything. I was clarifying the question for which your answer was "ask again in three years". You did a very nice job of explaining the methods of several interesting studies you're working on now, but after reading your posts, I'm simply pointing out that these studies should help answer a different question than the original one I asked.

I know you have a respectable career behind you, and I'm certainly not suggesting you try to cram one more question into a study that's already designed and underway! At most, I'm suggesting that if the results of some of your studies is "Yes, these methods do, given modern equipment - allow you to extend the season and extract more sap overall" - then you might consider suggesting a follow-up study to some of those who come after you. If you think it's an interesting question, then the follow-up study might be to look at those trees that really produced a lot of extra sap, to see if continuing to do so in the longer term has any deleterious affect. Simply a thought for your consideration.

Thanks, as always, for your input here!

Gabe