Carbon Neutral Maple Syrup

[PaulRenaud]

Yes, it is possible, even if you have a wood-fired evaporator. Currently we are the only net-zero maple syrup producer in the world, a distinction that is not something that we wish to maintain given the threat of climate change to maple syrup producers.


Information on how you can decarbonize your maple syrup operation is available from the Net-Zero page at https://www.spiritintheforest.ca

Suggest you start with the PDF presentation https://www.renaud.ca/public/MapleSyrup/Net-Zero/Carbon_Neutral_Maple_Syrup.pdf
and if you are interested, please read the white paper (both available in both English and French).

There is also a bilingual toolbox (Excel spreadsheet) that can make it easier for you to do the sequestration and carbon emission calculations.


If you are a member of the Ontario Maple Syrup Producer's Association, please contact me so that I can register your interest in decarbonizing your production with our climate change committee.

Si vous êtes membres de la Fédération Acéricole de Québec, contactez-moi pour m’aider faire une introduction avec la Fédération.

If you are a member of another association, please ask your association climate change rep to contact me about coordinating net-zero participation with us, also let me know who you have contacted to facilitate making an introduction to your association.


Paul Renaud (paul@espritdanslaforet.ca)

[PaulRenaud]

After reading at least the presentation, if you are a maple syrup producer you are welcome to participate in our online survey of interest in net-zero maple syrup.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/8XBB2QM

[TapTapTap]

Yes, it is possible, even if you have a wood-fired evaporator.

I'm skeptical that you can be carbon-neutral without being wood-fired, unless you have a 100% solar-powered electric evaporator.

I understand (but I admit to be no expert) that burning wood is by definition carbon-neutral since wood is already part of the carbon cycle in the environment. When a tree dies it is no longer sequestering carbon and it starts the process of releasing the carbon back into the atmosphere. Therefore, you are just releasing sequestered carbon a little faster but not adding to the overall carbon in the environment. I agree that a faster release may be far short of the objective but, on the other hand, burning fossil fuel to heat the evaporator introduces new carbon that is already permanently sequestered, and that is the real problem.

[jrgagne99]

I have some carbon credits to sell if anyone wants to offset their carbon footprint. Just PM me you bank account information. :lol: /sarcasm/

[PaulRenaud]

I'm skeptical that you can be carbon-neutral without being wood-fired, unless you have a 100% solar-powered electric evaporator.

I understand (but I admit to be no expert) that burning wood is by definition carbon-neutral since wood is already part of the carbon cycle in the environment. When a tree dies it is no longer sequestering carbon and it starts the process of releasing the carbon back into the atmosphere. Therefore, you are just releasing sequestered carbon a little faster but not adding to the overall carbon in the environment. I agree that a faster release may be far short of the objective but, on the other hand, burning fossil fuel to heat the evaporator introduces new carbon that is already permanently sequestered, and that is the real problem.

Many people confuse net-zero with zero-carbon. A zero-carbon process emits no CO2, while a net-zero process controls the amount of CO2 emitted to less than the amount sequestered.

Under the GHG Protocol accounting rules for CO2 emission disclosure, you are NOT net-zero if you are relying on a 100+ year lifecycle for trees to justify your annual carbon emissions. You need to balance your annual emissions within the budget established by the sequestration of your trees. To say that you are carbon neutral because you burn wood because wood is a natural resource is greenwashing.

If you read the presentation offered, you will see that we employ an approach that is in accordance with GHG Protocol standards that is independent of your fuel source. Whether you use wood or oil to run your evaporator does not matter if you operate within you carbon budget because your carbon footprint is net-zero.

If you also take the time to read the more detailed guide that is offered, you will see that we also recommend that you use a more climate friendly fuel source because that is just plain better for the environment. However, this does not affect the accounting for carbon that we do in our calculations.

Larger operators are more efficient than smaller maple syrup producers. Many of them burn oil in their evaporators because it is more fuel efficient than using an inefficient wood evaporator. Typical oil evaporators have efficiencies north of 70% while typical wood evaporators have out-of-the-box efficiencies south of 30%. Our detailed guide provides useful recommendations for how you can improve the efficacy of your evaporator to 80%.

I hope you find this clarification helpful.

[PaulRenaud]

I have some carbon credits to sell if anyone wants to offset their carbon footprint. Just PM me you bank account information. :lol: /sarcasm/

You may be surprised if you investigate the PIVOT project in Quebec which uses a collective approach to aggregate carbon sequestration benefits to sell carbon credits which are then paid back to the members in the coop.

Although this program is not suitable in its current form for maple syrup producers because it is aimed at woodlot owners who harvest trees selectively, it is an example of what could be possible in the near future.

But first maple syrup producers must get their act together by using proper GHG accounting standards (as we recommend) and then get their associations engaged on carbon credits as the Ontario Maple Syrup Producers Assoc is already doing.

[PaulRenaud]

FYI, the GHG calculator has been updated to include efficiency calculation for oil-fired evaporators as well as wood-fired evaporators.

This update is now available on the Net-Zero page of our website or via this direct link
https://www.renaud.ca/public/MapleSyrup/Net-Zero/Net-Zero_Toolkit.xlsx

[buckeye gold]

I seriously doubt that any single Maple opporation makes any significant footprint on the global carbon footprint, it would take a carbon elctron microsope to find it. One forest fire adds more to the atmosphere than a hundred years of syrup boiling. Count me as one who has zero concern on whether my syrup opporation is carbon net zero. Heck, My furnace and wood stove in my house has more impact. I think this is a non-issue for Maple producers. Count me wrong or count me right, I have just spoken honestly. Like someone said, wood is already active carbon in our system.

[PaulRenaud]

I seriously doubt that any single Maple opporation makes any significant footprint on the global carbon footprint, it would take a carbon elctron microsope to find it. One forest fire adds more to the atmosphere than a hundred years of syrup boiling. Count me as one who has zero concern on whether my syrup opporation is carbon net zero. Heck, My furnace and wood stove in my house has more impact. I think this is a non-issue for Maple producers. Count me wrong or count me right, I have just spoken honestly. Like someone said, wood is already active carbon in our system.

Either you are part of the problem, or you are part of the solution. This is an opportunity for those of us who want to make a difference via our own actions, big or small. Fact remains that you can make a positive contribution should you choose to, rather than sitting around waiting for others to act on matters you cannot control.

[buckeye gold]

Ok I am part of the problem, I can live with that as far as my little syrup opporation goes. After all it's just an opinion and mine is it's a non issue for Maple producers. I mean no malice and I respect your passion and commitment, we just differ in our assesment.

I do have one question. When you inventory your woods to establish sequestered carbon, how do you factor in non timbered acres. For example my property is 50% grassland and 50% timber. Doesn't grass land and total vegetation inventory count?

[PaulRenaud]

I do have one question. When you inventory your woods to establish sequestered carbon, how do you factor in non timbered acres. For example my property is 50% grassland and 50% timber. Doesn't grass land and total vegetation inventory count?

Apologies for the delay in replying, my first reply seems to have been eaten by the system. If this appears as a double reply, you will know why. Hopefully I'll say the same things as well the second time thru!

The scope of the current toolkit focuses only on the forested area of your maple syrup operation. Most maple syrup producers also own and operate a woodlot or farm in addition to being maple syrup producers. Both scenarios introduce the possibility of larger sequestration benefits but also introduce further complications. So instead of trying to solve world-hunger, we try to keep things simple by focusing on maple syrup.

In the case of a woodlot, your management and harvesting practices will have a significant effect on sequestration gain/loss. For example, tree marking practices, harvesting schedule, method of harvest, etc. Many forestry associations are providing increased guidance on this topic - the most advanced currently seems to be the Quebec forestry assoc. that is also offering a carbon credit program for woodlot owners willing to modify their practices.

In the case of a farm, crops sequester carbon as they grow but release it when you till the soil. Fertilization and watering practices can also create GHG emissions. No-till farming methods are being documented that can help reduce carbon footprint for many crop types. So the point of departure for researching this is your land use as a farmer.

In the case of a ranch, pasture sequesters carbon as it grows but livestock grazing on it can be a source of methane emissions. This varies by feedstock and the extent to which it is used in addition to pasture. As an example, Canadian beef cattle tend to be less GHG-intensive compared to American beef-cattle because they are predominantly grass-fed while most beef-cattle in the USA are corn-fed. You would need to do further research by livestock type to understand where the net-zero breakeven point is in the ratio of grassland to livestock feeding off it.

Maple syrup has a unique advantage over most food producers (that is shared only by orchards and honey-producers) in that we do not kill our source of food during the harvest of it. Net-zero agriculture is a broad topic that is just starting to get established. I am hoping that what we can accomplish as net-zero maple syrup producers will serve both as inspiration and as something that other agricultural producers can build on & improve as they too move towards decarbonizing our food.

[buckeye gold]

Thanks for the reply. As for my grassland it is permanent and not grazed or tilled. I mow it down a couple times a year and that's it. My forest mangement and harvest is on a rotating basis with select harvest of large trees about every 10 years. I have about a 30 % mature near harvest (DBH > 18") stand and the remaining 70% is regenrative growth varying in age from 5 -30 years. Damaged, and poor quality trees are culled as needed. I haven't run a forest transect in a while but I am guessing my mean Stem density index is around 100. The DBH ranges are 2-24", with 2-10" being the prdominate understory and 10-15" DBH being the next and finally the mature canopy holders of >20". So I am mostly fast growing timber and Our growing season is considerably longer than Canada's, so I think my offset is most likely pretty strong.

[PaulRenaud]

Thanks for the reply. As for my grassland it is permanent and not grazed or tilled. I mow it down a couple times a year and that's it. My forest mangement and harvest is on a rotating basis with select harvest of large trees about every 10 years. I have about a 30 % mature near harvest (DBH > 18") stand and the remaining 70% is regenrative growth varying in age from 5 -30 years. Damaged, and poor quality trees are culled as needed. I haven't run a forest transect in a while but I am guessing my mean Stem density index is around 100. The DBH ranges are 2-24", with 2-10" being the prdominate understory and 10-15" DBH being the next and finally the mature canopy holders of >20". So I am mostly fast growing timber and Our growing season is considerably longer than Canada's, so I think my offset is most likely pretty strong.

If you want to include your grassland, it may be possible to find the sequestration rate per hectare for the type of grass that is growing on your fields online, but I suspect that this will not be a meaningful amount (grass is smaller than trees) and you would need to include the fuel used for cutting it as a scope 1 emission (you can do this in the toolkit easily by entering in the number of litres of diesel or gasoline used for cutting the grass). On balance, unless you have alot of acreage, may not be worth adding it in.

As for forest, the polewood that is under 10" diameter does not contribute very much. You can see this in the sequestration calculator if you enter in some quantity of them.

The larger trees in the 10 - 24" range are more meaningful. You are correct that the longer growing season is also more helpful, however, this is already factored into the calculation via the resulting increase in diameter of trees year over year (i.e. redo your inventory by diameter more frequently). You should be able to use your stem density index to extrapolate to the number of trees per hectare. I can't quite recall the formula for doing that (let me know and I will consider adding it into the sequestration calculator). In any event, once you have a distribution of trees by size, you can use the existing calculator to figure out your sequestration. There is nothing stopping you from using those additional trees in your calculation as long as you do not harvest the ones counted in the same year that you are claiming a sequestration benefit from them.

Hope this helps.

[mapleack]

Interesting Paul, I was just pondering this very topic in the last couple weeks.

[buckeye gold]

Paul, It is apparent you have put a lot of time and effort into this and that is admirable, but in all honesty I have no concerns as to my Maple syrup production's impact on climate change/global warming. I believe in sound ecological forest management in maintaining a renewable resource and sustainable harvest. I most likely will never calculate my carbon sequester. Count me as skeptic to the whole carbon loading theory and if that makes me part of the problem, so be it. There are way too many conflicting opinions and I just can't find anyone with overwhelming evidence or proof on either side. Surely Maple syrup production is a very tiny contributor if it's a real issue. I can see where this does make a marketing angle, just like organic, but scientifically I think it is statistically insignificant. I think it is time for me to graciously bow out of the discussion. I can see you have invested a lot of time and work and what you have done is interesting and well done. Perhaps some day I will be convinced and if that day comes I will be glad to give you your due credit and apology. Signing out of this thread

[PaulRenaud]

I frequently encounter 3 myths regarding net-zero maple syrup that are worth commenting on.

1. The first myth comes in various forms based on whether climate change is real, or that anything we do matters. Since this is not the appropriate venue for debating that viewpoint, I will simply remark that various opinions on matters of science from people with insufficient credentials are not persuasive. To paraphrase a famous teenage Swedish girl, "you can argue with me but you cannot argue with physics"

2. The second myth is that maple syrup production using wood fired evaporators is inherently carbon neutral because wood is a renewable resource. While this is perhaps a true statement over the 200-year lifetime of a maple tree, it is not much help in a scenario where severe global warming becomes irreversible within a decade. We can and should do much better by operating on an annual cycle of carbon neutrality.

3. The third myth is more complex and is based on the concept of "additionality" when it comes to sequestration. This myth would have us believe that the sequestration of carbon by our maple forests do not matter because they are already doing their job regardless of our activities. Hence, only by creating additional sequestration will a net benefit be achieved. This line of thinking is inherently flawed because it ignores the root of the problem - our current inability as a society to operate in balance with nature. Yet if we bring our activities back into balance, the problem is solved. So by taking the step to bring our maple syrup production back within the budget of sequestration established by our trees, we are in fact bringing our activities back into balance and hence operating on a net-zero basis.

The only remaining question regarding "additionality" is whether net-benefits can be derived (e.g. via carbon credits) if we further improve to operate on a net-zero basis. This is where the additionality counter-argument falls on its face, because in that scenario we are creating additional sequestration headroom (previously occupied by us) that could be used by others so that in aggregate we both operate on a net-zero basis. I.E. we have in fact created additional sequestration headroom by improving the carbon footprint of our activities. So obviously the sequestration activity of our forests is a foundation for calculating net-zero footprint.

[4Walls]

I consider myself carbon neutral for my maple syrup production. I use waste vegetable oil as my main heat source. It took me 2 years to invent a way to burn clean and continuous. I've gone from a cord of wood a day to half a cord a season for 100 gallons of syrup. All my "fuel" I can eat and was destined to other recycling projects that are more carbon intensive on the environment. Except maybe heating and spraying raw waste veggie oil on the gravel roads to solidify them and reduce dust.
RO is a huge factor in reducing GHG but it only works for the "credits" if the electrical power source comes from a renewable source. All my power comes from a local hydro dam but that also has a initial and latent GHG effect.
Basically, Ive thought about this a lot and there is no way to make any type of sugar, that is concentrated and transportable, carbon neutral unless it is grown, produced and consumed locally, and sun dried. All we can do is strive to reduce the amount of old carbon and focus on using new carbon like the wood from our forests or waste veggie oil.
Every maple producer I have ever met is in tune with his/her forest and surrounding ecosystem. I would suggest that maple syrup is not the problem for global carbon pollution.
My .02c

[TapTapTap]

RO is a huge factor in reducing GHG but it only works for the "credits" if the electrical power source comes from a renewable source. All my power comes from a local hydro dam but that also has a initial and latent GHG effect.


Technically, you may not be able to assign the carbon credits that the power company owns related to their hydro generation. In a similar situation, I own a 15 kw solar array on my property. I benefit financially from the power I generate but not the carbon credits since the power is sold back to the power company and then they own those credits.

[PaulRenaud]

I consider myself carbon neutral for my maple syrup production. I use waste vegetable oil as my main heat source. It took me 2 years to invent a way to burn clean and continuous. I've gone from a cord of wood a day to half a cord a season for 100 gallons of syrup. All my "fuel" I can eat and was destined to other recycling projects that are more carbon intensive on the environment. Except maybe heating and spraying raw waste veggie oil on the gravel roads to solidify them and reduce dust.
RO is a huge factor in reducing GHG but it only works for the "credits" if the electrical power source comes from a renewable source. All my power comes from a local hydro dam but that also has a initial and latent GHG effect.
Basically, Ive thought about this a lot and there is no way to make any type of sugar, that is concentrated and transportable, carbon neutral unless it is grown, produced and consumed locally, and sun dried. All we can do is strive to reduce the amount of old carbon and focus on using new carbon like the wood from our forests or waste veggie oil.
Every maple producer I have ever met is in tune with his/her forest and surrounding ecosystem. I would suggest that maple syrup is not the problem for global carbon pollution.
My .02c

Regardless of the fuel type used for the evaporator, the international rules for climate accounting insist that you cannot be net-zero unless you have accounted for all Scope 1 (direct) Scope 2 (electrical indirect) and Scope 3 (indirect third party) emissions and then compare it to the carbon budget established by your sugarbush.

Using a renewable or recycled source of fuel does not cut it. Suggest you examine the emissions from burning veggie oil as well as your other fuel uses (e.g. transporting your syrup to market, etc). You can use the checklists for each Scope type in the calculator found on our website. It is possible that burning vegan oil is lower carbon emission than say wood (I haven't researched this myself), in which case your footprint may be low enough to fit into your carbon budget.

Claiming that maple syrup is not a major contributor to the global problem is not a substitute for taking action. Some might consider that line of thinking to be a "cop-out" or a even passive-aggressive form of climate change denial.

[PaulRenaud]

Technically, you may not be able to assign the carbon credits that the power company owns related to their hydro generation. In a similar situation, I own a 15 kw solar array on my property. I benefit financially from the power I generate but not the carbon credits since the power is sold back to the power company and then they own those credits.

The generation of power on your property is an offset only against the scope 2 emissions of your electric utility. Basically, you would use the net of Kwh generated vs consumed from the grid and prorate the result (ie. net divided by external source kwh) against the power used by pumps and RO / filters in your maple syrup operation. If you generate more than you use from external sources, you have zero scope 2 emissons.

[TapTapTap]

The generation of power on your property is an offset only against the scope 2 emissions of your electric utility. Basically, you would use the net of Kwh generated vs consumed from the grid and prorate the result (ie. net divided by external source kwh) against the power used by pumps and RO / filters in your maple syrup operation. If you generate more than you use from external sources, you have zero scope 2 emissons.

I'm a little confused by your explanation. I think I understand you to mean that I can use my excess generation to offset the scope 2 emissions only for the percent of unconsumed power applied to the maple production consumption:

For 2020:
Generation: 21,562 kwh
Consumed From Grid: 16,736 (house and maple operation)
Unconsumed: 4,826 and not sold to off-taker

% = 4826/16736 = 28.84

Maple Production Consumption: 1686

1686 x 0.2884 = 486 kwh at zero scope 2 emissions
1686 x (1-.2884) = 1200 kwh at scope 2 emissions from my power company.

Am I understanding this properly?

ken

[PaulRenaud]

I'm a little confused by your explanation. I think I understand you to mean that I can use my excess generation to offset the scope 2 emissions only for the percent of unconsumed power applied to the maple production consumption:

For 2020:
Generation: 21,562 kwh
Consumed From Grid: 16,736 (house and maple operation)
Unconsumed: 4,826 and not sold to off-taker

% = 4826/16736 = 28.84

Maple Production Consumption: 1686

1686 x 0.2884 = 486 kwh at zero scope 2 emissions
1686 x (1-.2884) = 1200 kwh at scope 2 emissions from my power company.

Am I understanding this properly?


Yes. Apologies for being so obtuse in my hurried explanation.

If your maple syrup consumption of power is 1686 kwh, these are normally your scope 2 emissions. Since you have a surplus of power, it is fair to apply them to your scope 2 emissions by the proportion of consumption related to your maple syrup operation to the total consumption. If you did not have a surplus of power, your carbon-free generation is in theory already accounted for in your state's electricity emission calculations.

My calculation for the surplus gets to the same place via a different route:

Proportion of power consumed from grid due to maple syrup 1686 / 16736 = 10%
Hence 10% of the surplus power is available to reduce your scope 2, i.e. 4826 x 10% = 482.6
Net Scope 2 is 1686 - 482.6 = 1203 kwh

I double checked the GHG Protocol on co-generation. Note that the downstream CO2 emissions arising from the transmission of the amount of offtake is also a scope 3 emission (prorated by the applicability to your maple syrup operation at 10%). I would suggest using the same scope 2 emissions rate for Vermont electricity to calculate this since you are using the same grid for both generation and consumption. This is a bit unfair as it embeds the CO2 for fossil fuels in the transmission costs, so if you can find out the break-out of just the transmission overhead you could use that instead.

It is worth observing that if you used a transfer switch to battery bank to service your maple syrup operation's electrical needs from your onsite generation, you could eliminate your scope 2 emissions entirely and not have to count the remaining excess as scope 3 because you could draw the accounting scope boundary at the maple syrup business. The only reason why the scope 3 co-generation transmission gets counted is because you need to incorporate the surplus generation against your scope 2.

[Michael Greer]

A fascinating thread that got really big, really fast. Thank you for all your hard work. The accounting gets over my head pretty quickly, so it's good that somebody (else) is doing the work.
My own little operation (500 taps) uses only sawmill scrap as fuel. My supplier typically burned his scrap piles once or twice a year, just to get rid of it. If seems to me that I'm taking that (wasted) carbon and making it produce something tangible and useful. My operation also packs only in glass, thereby reducing the creation of, and disposal of all those plastics. My glass goes out into the mostly local community, and much of it comes back to me for re-use. I'm pretty frugal with equipment, and take care to wring every bit of use out of gear before sending it to the scrap yard to be recycled.
Lately I've had what could be called existential thoughts about my sugaring operation. I burn fuel to make a product...but is that product necessary at all. Wouldn't we all be healthier if we got rid of the sugar in our diets altogether? It's a troubling thought.

[PaulRenaud]

Lets not lose sight of the fact that maple syrup is the healthiest sweetener available. It was traditionally used by the First Nations of North America to rebuild their bodies after a long winter and is the richest natural source of anti-oxidants. Nature's own energy drink!

While you only mentioned this as an aside to bolster your argument, it is kind of a pet peeve of mine. You need to keep in mind that you're getting a whopping dose of sugar along with those antioxidants, vitamins and minerals. Blueberries, cranberries and other plant-based foods contain far more antioxidants than maple syrup, with WAY less sugar.

While it's true that indigenous peoples of North America consumed a good bit of maple sugar in the spring, it was mainly for subsistence. Maple is what was available at that time of year, not to "rebuild their bodies." Maple sugar, like all other sugars, are mostly empty calories. You'd need to consume over a quart of syrup DAILY to get the needed dose of many minerals (zinc, iron, potassium, calcium, etc.) that maple is fairly high in.

Don't get me wrong...I prefer maple syrup to many other types of sugar, but I always cringe a little when people talk about health effects of maple. It is mostly advertising "spin" in my way of thinking. Yes, in some ways maple syrup is marginally better than other sugars, but it is still MOSTLY sugar. The only reason it is better is that it is far less refined, so the small amount of "good" stuff has not been stripped out. The argument is sort of like would you rather get hit by a car driving 60 mph or a truck driving 80 mph. Neither are particularly healthy except in comparison.

[TapTapTap]

At the risk of being repetitive, once again, using fuel from a renewable or recycled source, including wood scrap that would otherwise emit CO2 as it rotted, is insufficient because it is based on a renewable CO2 cycle measured over the lifetime of trees (over 100 yrs). Let alone the "leakage" that is presumed to occur in the eventual update of that carbon due to loss of forest and ocean capacity to absorb it.

So Paul, I guess you need to continue to be repetitive because I don't understand your point and I assume others don't either. Can you explain, in simple terms, the logic that using scrap is not carbon neutral. It seems that whoever has done the harvesting should take the burden of the consumption, not the user of the scrap. Can you also explain how you would credit, or assign carbon, to firewood harvested from dead, down, diseased trees?

Even my forestry management plan requires me to cull out the less healthy/desirable trees. For example, poplar and white pine. I know first hand that these trees can be very destructive to their neighbor trees since they grow so fast and taller that they inevitably die earlier and often crash down on the desirable trees. Another example is with ash trees for the concern for the emerald ash borer.

Thanks
Ken

[PaulRenaud]

So Paul, I guess you need to continue to be repetitive because I don't understand your point and I assume others don't either. Can you explain, in simple terms, the logic that using scrap is not carbon neutral. It seems that whoever has done the harvesting should take the burden of the consumption, not the user of the scrap. Can you also explain how you would credit, or assign carbon, to firewood harvested from dead, down, diseased trees?


OK, let me try to break it down into more detail:

1. When you burn any fuel via combustion the process emits CO2. For example, if you burn a full cord of wood on an evaporator that is 20% efficient (as most wood evaporators are), you will emit over 2500 Kg of CO2 (over a metric ton) regardless of how climate friendly fuel source. The more you burn, the more CO2 you emit. To be carbon neutral, you need to ensure that all this carbon is sequestered.

2. The argument for using a climate friendly fuel source, such as wood pellets made from sawmill scrap, harvesting wood from only dead or downed trees, using scrap lumber, recycled veggie oil, etc. is based on the premise that this emission would have occurred naturally anyway, so that these emissions are non-additive, and that natural sequestration would have eventually absorbed them. But what about the timing of this quantity of emissions?

3. This non-additivity is only "true" if you look over the 100-200 year cycle of the lifetime of a tree and if you assume no leakage due to loss of sequestration capacity in the forest (due to disease, invasive species, biological transition caused by climate change, etc.). Left alone in the forest that tree would grow, die, fall down, decompose over its lifetime. And during the end of that life-cycle, the roots would continue to sequester carbon, as wood some of the leaf litter that decomposes into the humus of the soil (typically the underlayer of litter and debris), so roughly 75% of the carbon of the tree would eventually be released to be taken up by the living trees in the forest.

4. But not all at once! In all scenarios where we use a renewable fuel, we are accelerating the rate of CO2 emission that would have otherwise naturally occurred as well as impacting (to some degree) the forest's eventual natural sequestration uptake of it. The rate of release of CO2 during that last part of the cycle is based on the half-life of the decay rate in the forest, which depends on conditions as well as the cause of the natural death of the tree (insects, disease, old age, etc.) but can be expected to take at least 7 years. So by harvesting that tree and burning it, we are accelerating the CO2 release by at least 7 years.

4(a) Use of wood harvested from living trees. Depending on its age at the time of being cut, that tree's lifecycle of CO2 sequestration is cut short (bad pun). It could have grown more (how much depends on the tree marking methodology, e.g. not much more if only diseased trees are cut, a lot more if healthy trees were cut) and therefore sequestered more. The stored carbon will be released far faster - an acceleration of possibly several decades or more, and there is less remaining sequestration capacity in the forest to take up carbon from the other fallen trees.

4(b) Use of wood harvested from dead and downed trees. In this scenario we are not cutting short the tree's lifetime CO2 sequestration period, but we are still accelerating the decomposition period. By removing the tree from the forest, we are impacting the debris that would otherwise be used as fertilizer by the remaining live trees.

4(c) Use of wood harvested from scrap lumber. In this scenario the impact of 4(a) loss of sequestration was caused by others, but we are still releasing the stored carbon in that fuel faster than it might have decomposed on its own in a landfill. The fact that the loss was caused by others is cold-comfort.

5. So in effect, when we attempt to make the argument that climate friendly fuel is non-additive, it only works if you ignore the timing of emissions and you assume that the forest capacity to sequester is not impacted. We could quibble about the degree of impact on the residual forest's ability to sequester and a counter-argument might hold more water if the world were already carbon neutral, but it isn't and global forest sequestration capacity is being seriously degraded by increased number of wildfires, invasive species, etc. caused by climate change with accelerating impacts. Timing matters. We only have until 2030 to get a grip on the irreversibility of climate change and that is less than a decade away.

6. Please don't get me wrong. I also use climate-friendly fuel sources exclusively. Climate-friendly vs fossil fuels makes a huge difference in the reduction of additivity of CO2 into the atmosphere over time compared to other fuels (and there is no avoiding the use of a fuel source to boil sap either directly via convection or indirectly via steam). It is definitely a good thing to use climate friendly fuel, just not good enough.

We need to think globally while acting locally, which is why our approach is to ensure that your annual emissions are balanced by the sequestration of the living maple trees that you harvest for sap. No acceleration, no additivity of any kind.

Hope this is helpful, paul

[PCFarms]

Further, while I understand that a single tree may exist over 100 years and in isolation does not make a significant contribution to carbon emission in a 1 year period and therefore cannot account to sustainability of an operation, over tens of thousands of trees in a forest, you can do this. There are thousands of trees rotting in my forest today, probably averaging many trees completely rotting everyday, releasing CO2. A forest can reliably supply firewood coming from 100 year old trees every year.

On one hand If you account for the growth of the trees to make the positive in your carbon equation, you certainly need to think about negative in the forest as well. The negative is made by decomposition and potentially burning of firewood. In this sense, burning firewood does not increase the amount of CO2 released, it just happens in a shorter timeframe. There would be a one time hit on the carbon equation when you start to use the dead wood as a fuel source, but once the 'life cycle' of a rotting tree is complete, this would become 0, and the carbon debt would be repaid when the maple operation ceases.

SO if you are an existing maple operation that has been using wood for at least a decade already, you have already emitted that 1-off carbon amount by accelerating the decay of wood, and you could argue, that looking forward from today, there is no net impact by continuing to burning wood.

[TapTapTap]

4. But not all at once! In all scenarios where we use a renewable fuel, we are accelerating the rate of CO2 emission that would have otherwise naturally occurred as well as impacting (to some degree) the forest's eventual natural sequestration uptake of it. The rate of release of CO2 during that last part of the cycle is based on the half-life of the decay rate in the forest, which depends on conditions as well as the cause of the natural death of the tree (insects, disease, old age, etc.) but can be expected to take at least 7 years. So by harvesting that tree and burning it, we are accelerating the CO2 release by at least 7 years.


So as I think I understand:

Downed and dead trees can be considered to have 7 years of carbon emission through their process of decaying. Therefore, it seems that if you account for the yearly emissions from burning the wood and credit back the carbon that would be emitted from the decay process you would be back to a carbon neutral accounting after 7 years of this practice.

year 1 = 100% emissions; year 2 = 100% - 100%/7 = 92.86%; year 3 = 100%- 100/7 - 100/7 = 85.7% ...... year 7 = 100% - 7 years of credit back = 0%

Am I understanding this correctly?

Ken

[PaulRenaud]

Further, while I understand that a single tree may exist over 100 years and in isolation does not make a significant contribution to carbon emission in a 1 year period and therefore cannot account to sustainability of an operation, over tens of thousands of trees in a forest, you can do this. There are thousands of trees rotting in my forest today, probably averaging many trees completely rotting everyday, releasing CO2. A forest can reliably supply firewood coming from 100 year old trees every year.

On one hand If you account for the growth of the trees to make the positive in your carbon equation, you certainly need to think about negative in the forest as well. The negative is made by decomposition and potentially burning of firewood. In this sense, burning firewood does not increase the amount of CO2 released, it just happens in a shorter timeframe. There would be a one time hit on the carbon equation when you start to use the dead wood as a fuel source, but once the 'life cycle' of a rotting tree is complete, this would become 0, and the carbon debt would be repaid when the maple operation ceases.

SO if you are an existing maple operation that has been using wood for at least a decade already, you have already emitted that 1-off carbon amount by accelerating the decay of wood, and you could argue, that looking forward from today, there is no net impact by continuing to burning wood.

This line of thinking overlooks the fact that the forest is already in a natural balance - absent the activities of humans. If the dead trees rotting in your forest were put there by Mother Nature, and not you, then all is good.

Climate change is caused by human activity according to the published and accepted science. So, in examining our carbon footprint, we need to look at the impact of our own action and ensure that they are mitigated by natural mechanisms.

Secondly, timing of carbon emissions matter. We do not have decades to pay back the deficit we are currently creating. We have less than 8 years and ducking human responsibility by blaming natural mechanisms (fires, volcanos, rotting trees in existing forests) is insufficient.

[PaulRenaud]

So as I think I understand:

Downed and dead trees can be considered to have 7 years of carbon emission through their process of decaying. Therefore, it seems that if you account for the yearly emissions from burning the wood and credit back the carbon that would be emitted from the decay process you would be back to a carbon neutral accounting after 7 years of this practice.

year 1 = 100% emissions; year 2 = 100% - 100%/7 = 92.86%; year 3 = 100%- 100/7 - 100/7 = 85.7% ...... year 7 = 100% - 7 years of credit back = 0%

Am I understanding this correctly?



I think you are overlooking the fact that each year you accelerate emissions by another 7 years. Your timeline shows the impact of only one year.

[TapTapTap]

I think you are overlooking the fact that each year you accelerate emissions by another 7 years. Your timeline shows the impact of only one year.

Can you be more specific?

I am adding each current year at 100% and reducing for each previous year I banked with the 7-year return. Maybe I didn't do it right but that was my thinking. So just looking at year 3:

+100% from year 3
-1/7 of year 1
-1/7 of year 2
Net for year 3 is 71.4%.

If you run it out through 7 years then your at 0% for the 8th.

Ken

[PaulRenaud]

I think the correct lens is to look at emissions in each year since that is what is driving climate change. Note that the tree decay rate is at least 7 years (and species specific), so let's just use 10 for the purposes of illustration and making the math easier to follow.

Suppose you emit 1000 (pick your units, say kg) CO2e/yr, over a 10-year period you would have emitted 10,000 kg CO2e/yr by burning wood.

Meanwhile, (ignoring the fact that even decaying trees don't totally release all their stored carbon), the trees burned in the first year would have decomposed 10%, i.e. 100 kg CO2e/yr. In the second year, while you burned another 1000 kg, in the alternative scenario the emissions from the first year of decay would be another 100 g plus the first installment of 100 g from the wood being consumed in the second year. In the 3rd year there are 3 contributions of 100, etc up to the 10th year when there are 10x100 or 1000 kg (it makes a triangle as in a depreciation schedule in finance).

So only in the 10th year does natural decomposition reach the same level as what you burned every year. If you add up the total emissions in the triangle you would have 1/2 x 10 x 1000 or 5,000 kg CO2e/yr over the same time period.

Cheers, Paul

[PaulRenaud]

While you only mentioned this as an aside to bolster your argument, it is kind of a pet peeve of mine. You need to keep in mind that you're getting a whopping dose of sugar along with those antioxidants, vitamins and minerals. Blueberries, cranberries and other plant-based foods contain far more antioxidants than maple syrup, with WAY less sugar.

While it's true that indigenous peoples of North America consumed a good bit of maple sugar in the spring, it was mainly for subsistence. Maple is what was available at that time of year, not to "rebuild their bodies." Maple sugar, like all other sugars, are mostly empty calories. You'd need to consume over a quart of syrup DAILY to get the needed dose of many minerals (zinc, iron, potassium, calcium, etc.) that maple is fairly high in.

Don't get me wrong...I prefer maple syrup to many other types of sugar, but I always cringe a little when people talk about health effects of maple. It is mostly advertising "spin" in my way of thinking. Yes, in some ways maple syrup is marginally better than other sugars, but it is still MOSTLY sugar. The only reason it is better is that it is far less refined, so the small amount of "good" stuff has not been stripped out. The argument is sort of like would you rather get hit by a car driving 60 mph or a truck driving 80 mph. Neither are particularly healthy except in comparison.

Somehow Tim Perkins quote and comment on my post was attributed to me by accident. Although confusing, I'd like to address a couple of the points he makes.

1. Agree that maple syrup is mostly sugar, sucrose to be specific. That is how we make it. However it has a lower glycemic index (54) than cane sugar (60) or honey (58). Not saying that diabetics should down this nectar but of the natural sweeteners, it's hard to beat it.

2. Disagree on the anti-oxidants level. The US National Institute of Health published a peer-reviewed paper by researchers at the Univ Oslo who measured the anti-ox levels of 3100 foods worldwide, yet somehow missed maple syrup. Ref:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2841576/ The highest category of food that they measured were indeed plant based foods, specifically herbal and traditional medicines, the max of which had just under 2800 micro-mols of anti-ox per 100 g of food. In fact there was only one food even in this ballpark, Sangre de grado, found in Peru.

Meanwhile an intrepid researcher in Japan published another peer-reviewed paper that studied the anti-ox level of maple syrup as it varies by the grade of syrup. Ref: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/fstr/21/3/21_495/_html. The lowest grade of maple syrup he tested ("extralight" which isn't even a grade in Canada) was 500 mmol/100g and the highest grade Dark, ranged from 1500 - 2000 mmol/100g. His point was that anti-ox levels vary by grade.

3. Also disagree on the traditional usage by native peoples. The good folk at the 4 Winds Medicine Council of Anishinabe and Mohawk medicine people confirm the traditional practice of drinking sweetwater straight from the tree was for the health benefits. They also drank butternut sap for the same reasons. Maple Syrup was used to hide the taste of meat that had spoiled, in the same way that spices were used for the same purpose in Europe for centuries. In neither case was it traditionally used as a food substitute.

4. As for minerals, agree that Potassium is the most significant mineral found in maple syrup (approx 2g per kg syrup), so while it contributes to achieving the daily recommended level of approx 3 g, realistically no-one is about to down more than 2L of syrup a day to get there! It is worth observing that a recent study by the Acer Institute in Quebec published in vol 131 of Food Control this year found that the level of potassium in maple syrup falls off significantly when the syrup is made from sap concentrated from 20 Brix or higher. So be aware of this when reviewing studies of potassium levels in maple syrup. The level of polyphenols also falls as higher RO concentrates are used as input to the boiling process.

[DrTimPerkins]

Somehow Tim Perkins quote and comment on my post was attributed to me by accident. Although confusing, I'd like to address a couple of the points he makes.

Sorry, looking back it appears that I "edited" your post instead of replying to it. As a moderator I can do that (I don't exercise that type of moderator duties...except this one time in error). My apologies for that.

Again, I disagree to a large degree with your comments and with your interpretations of the studies you cite. Since, as I stated earlier, this diversion isn't pertinent to the thread, I'll let it go now, but happy to continue this should it arise again in another post.

[DrTimPerkins]

I think the correct lens is to look at emissions in each year since that is what is driving climate change. Note that the tree decay rate is at least 7 years (and species specific), so let's just use 10 for the purposes of illustration and making the math easier to follow.

Decay rate (or more correctly, carbon release rate) is going to vary considerably depending upon whether the wood is burned, used for lumber purposes (in which case it may not decay for 50-150 yrs or more), allowed to decay in the forest. The rate of decay even in the case of natural forest decay will vary depending upon whether it is leaves, twigs/branches, stems, or roots. Ten years is not nearly enough for a large stem, but is probably way too long for fine roots, leaves, and twigs.

[TapTapTap]

I think the correct lens is to look at emissions in each year since that is what is driving climate change. Note that the tree decay rate is at least 7 years (and species specific), so let's just use 10 for the purposes of illustration and making the math easier to follow.

Suppose you emit 1000 (pick your units, say kg) CO2e/yr, over a 10-year period you would have emitted 10,000 kg CO2e/yr by burning wood.

Meanwhile, (ignoring the fact that even decaying trees don't totally release all their stored carbon), the trees burned in the first year would have decomposed 10%, i.e. 100 kg CO2e/yr. In the second year, while you burned another 1000 kg, in the alternative scenario the emissions from the first year of decay would be another 100 g plus the first installment of 100 g from the wood being consumed in the second year. In the 3rd year there are 3 contributions of 100, etc up to the 10th year when there are 10x100 or 1000 kg (it makes a triangle as in a depreciation schedule in finance).

So only in the 10th year does natural decomposition reach the same level as what you burned every year. If you add up the total emissions in the triangle you would have 1/2 x 10 x 1000 or 5,000 kg CO2e/yr over the same time period.

Cheers, Paul

Paul,
I get and agree that 7 years might not be the correct decay rate.
Please clarify whether you agree or disagree with my methodology, and if not, then why.

thx

Ken

[PaulRenaud]

Paul,
I get and agree that 7 years might not be the correct decay rate.
Please clarify whether you agree or disagree with my methodology, and if not, then why.

thx

Ken

Arg, the forum timed out my session as I was uploading my reply and seems to have lost it, so here is my second attempt (the joy of satellite Internet).

No, I do not agree. The only reliable way to know that you are net zero is to balance your actual emissions annually against the actual sequestration of your existing sugarbush. You can apply recognized climate accounting practices, measure it, report on it, and even audit it.

The alternative approach of adding up hypothetical "credits" that exist in only an alternative universe where the same tree had not been used for fuel but might have decayed is based solely on dubious assumption and speculation. You must assume that the tree would have decayed over a set period (ignoring variance due to climate, species, local conditions, etc.), and ignore the fact that not all of a tree's carbon is released when it decays (a significant amount goes back into the soil, also depending on climate, species, local conditions, etc.). You must also assume that the natural process of carbon uptake is not diminished due to climate change (even though we know it is), disease, development, invasive species, disasters, etc. In the case of reclaimed lumber, you must also overlook the fact that that tree's natural sequestration cycle was cut short (pun intended) by others and pretend that it doesn't matter. And, as I demonstrated in my simple example, you always accelerate carbon emissions during the critical time window the world is now in when we need to reduce and balance them. Relying on an uncertain premise that nature will catch up to these emissions is not persuasive.

So I recommend you (we) do both. Use a more climate friendly fuel (renewable) than fossil fuels and balance your emissions annually. If every maple tap in Canada were (provably) net-zero we would sequester 1 Billion kg of CO2e per year. That is equivalent to emissions from 320,000 Canadian households (i.e. a mid-sized city the size of Winnipeg or Quebec City).

[TapTapTap]

Arg, the forum timed out my session as I was uploading my reply and seems to have lost it, so here is my second attempt (the joy of satellite Internet).

No, I do not agree. The only reliable way to know that you are net zero is to balance your actual emissions annually against the actual sequestration of your existing sugarbush. You can apply recognized climate accounting practices, measure it, report on it, and even audit it.



I don't see that you'd be assigning an "actual sequestration" either. And, since you are asserting implied assumptions on the sequestration of dead trees counted in your forest inventory then maybe the same assumptions can be applied to the emissions side so long as you don't double count the benefit. However, I agree it is conservative to ignore any emissions credit back for consumed dead trees and makes sense for simplifying the implied assumptions on all sides of the equation.

[DrTimPerkins]

There are definitely going to be some people who will be enthusiastic about this because of the climate change issue. Some may also be resistant for the same reason. While it isn't a subject area I'm well versed in and I'm sure there is always some tweaking that can be done around the edges of this model, this seems like a good approach overall. Regardless of how you feel about it, it seems like this could be a useful marketing strategy, sort of like organic syrup or bird-friendly maple.

Many people like to feel they're doing something good for the environment, and if eating maple syrup can also make them feel they're helping...great. There is no doubt that trees sequester carbon, and that maple production can be a sustainable way to maintain forests in a productive capacity while also yielding a crop. Way better than cutting them down and building houses. Seems like a win-win situation for the maple industry in any case. More research and far more discussion of this topic is needed.

[TapTapTap]

Way better than cutting them down and building houses. Seems like a win-win situation for the maple industry in any case. More research and far more discussion of this topic is needed.

I'll say that I'm supportive. But I'm also skeptical because my awareness is very limited and it's obviously an extremely complex and specific to each producers operations and their forest.

In response to your comment on better than cutting them down for building - it seems a lot more complicated and is perhaps a better option than concrete construction. Concrete accounts for 8% of the world carbon emissions. So my point is that it makes sense to continue to promote the forestry industry for building products. As you indicated in a previous post, you could expect a long sequestration for these products. So the irony could be that cutting more forest is a better method.

There'll be a lot more discussion for some time to come.

Ken

[DrTimPerkins]

... it makes sense to continue to promote the forestry industry for building products.

Absolutely. My personal preference (obviously) is that forests that are amenable to it be used for making syrup, but sustainable timber products should have a strong place in the mix. There's been quite a bit of work on using forestry practices to increase carbon sequestration, but far more needs to be done on the maple syrup side. From the many different studies I've seen, maple syrup production is often more economically advantageous in the long-term than logging, or perhaps a mix of the two depending on the forest.

[4Walls]

Quote from Paul.
1. When you burn any fuel via combustion the process emits CO2. For example, if you burn a full cord of wood on an evaporator that is 20% efficient (as most wood evaporators are), you will emit over 2500 Kg of CO2 (over a metric ton) regardless of how climate friendly fuel source. The more you burn, the more CO2 you emit. To be carbon neutral, you need to ensure that all this carbon is sequestered."

Paul. I get what you are saying. I think we are all trying to use as little fuel as possible and are pretty good at protecting our own little piece of the environment.

The way I see it is the difference between new carbon and old carbon( ie fossil fuels). The veggie oil I use is new carbon. The rape seed plant (Canola) really has a 1 year life cycle. A lot of the solar energy is stored and carbon is captured into the plant. The seed is pressed and used in the food industry and then can either decompose or be burned in a by-industry like my little maple syrup operation. I really don't see any difference between the 1 year cycle and say a 200 year cycle for burning maple cordwood. Sun energy is captured, plant takes and stores co2 from the air. Eventually Co2 is returned to the air by either decomposition or in the form of beautifully stacked cordwood. It will eventually be used by another plant. The fact is that it is all new and natural carbon that is being recycled from the environment over a relatively insignificant amount of time. Old Carbon is hundreds of millions of years old and has been sequestered. Adding that to the cycle throws balance of Co2 that we have thought of as normal and acceptable into a dynamically unstable cycle.

The environmental impact is not the burning of the wood or the veggie oil; or even leaving them to decompose naturally. Both those will add the same amount of carbon into the environment as they have already removed from the environment, be it on a 1 year cycle or a 200 year cycle.

The real nitty gritty is how much "old" carbon is used in the production and collection of those fuel sources. So sure, I could use a hand saw and cut and carry the wood by hand instead of the chainsaw and the tractor to move the wood. Then I would have to get into calculating how many extra calories I consume to keep me going and how much fossil fuels are used to get that extra food to my plate.

I get what you are saying and I think it is great to think about the best way to minimize co2 output while balancing the want of the sugar product. Sugar is going to be consumed around the world no matter what the environmental cost. All I can do is strive to have the cleanest and greenest operation and end my reliance on sugar plantations around the world that are horrendous on both human rights issues and environmental issues.
Justin

[PaulRenaud]

I don't see that you'd be assigning an "actual sequestration" either. And, since you are asserting implied assumptions on the sequestration of dead trees counted in your forest inventory then maybe the same assumptions can be applied to the emissions side so long as you don't double count the benefit. However, I agree it is conservative to ignore any emissions credit back for consumed dead trees and makes sense for simplifying the implied assumptions on all sides of the equation.

It sounds like you have not read the GHG Protocol-based methodology that we are using when talking about net-zero. We do NOT assume any sequestration from dead trees, nor is there any double counting of either benefits or emissions. Please take the time to read at least the short presentation document.

[PaulRenaud]

Quote from Paul.
1. When you burn any fuel via combustion the process emits CO2. For example, if you burn a full cord of wood on an evaporator that is 20% efficient (as most wood evaporators are), you will emit over 2500 Kg of CO2 (over a metric ton) regardless of how climate friendly fuel source. The more you burn, the more CO2 you emit. To be carbon neutral, you need to ensure that all this carbon is sequestered."

Paul. I get what you are saying. I think we are all trying to use as little fuel as possible and are pretty good at protecting our own little piece of the environment.

The way I see it is the difference between new carbon and old carbon( ie fossil fuels). The veggie oil I use is new carbon. The rape seed plant (Canola) really has a 1 year life cycle. A lot of the solar energy is stored and carbon is captured into the plant. The seed is pressed and used in the food industry and then can either decompose or be burned in a by-industry like my little maple syrup operation. I really don't see any difference between the 1 year cycle and say a 200 year cycle for burning maple cordwood. Sun energy is captured, plant takes and stores co2 from the air. Eventually Co2 is returned to the air by either decomposition or in the form of beautifully stacked cordwood. It will eventually be used by another plant. The fact is that it is all new and natural carbon that is being recycled from the environment over a relatively insignificant amount of time. Old Carbon is hundreds of millions of years old and has been sequestered. Adding that to the cycle throws balance of Co2 that we have thought of as normal and acceptable into a dynamically unstable cycle.

The environmental impact is not the burning of the wood or the veggie oil; or even leaving them to decompose naturally. Both those will add the same amount of carbon into the environment as they have already removed from the environment, be it on a 1 year cycle or a 200 year cycle.

The real nitty gritty is how much "old" carbon is used in the production and collection of those fuel sources. So sure, I could use a hand saw and cut and carry the wood by hand instead of the chainsaw and the tractor to move the wood. Then I would have to get into calculating how many extra calories I consume to keep me going and how much fossil fuels are used to get that extra food to my plate.

Justin

A couple of comments. First, you need to be very careful in making any assumptions regarding sequestration via crops. Most agriculture practices NOT carbon-neutral and release carbon stored in the soil when they till to plant new crops. Your canola oil also is harvested only from the seeds and not the stalks which contain more stored carbon that is released as the cut plant decays after harvesting.

Second, all this thinking about old vs new carbon is unnecessary complexity. No point trying to overthink this as you just end up on thin ice. Carbon is carbon, emissions need to be balanced by sequestration, period. The maple trees that you harvest sap from provide more than enough sequestration if you are efficient. The carbon calculators that we provide can help you prove it without unneeded handwaving.

[buckeye gold]

I said I was done with this thread, but wanted to say the following. Although I have not seen anything offered to convince me Maple Syrup production has any significant position in global warming, I have enjoyed reading this thread. Even though it has been mostly a 2-3 person discussion (which suggest to me there's not a lot of concern among producers). I do want to compliment you on your passion PaulRanauld and your dogged determination. Although I remain unconvinced this discussion has fostered some thought and consideration on the topic. You have undoubtedly put a lot of time into it. I compliment you on your hard work.

[TapTapTap]

It sounds like you have not read the GHG Protocol-based methodology that we are using when talking about net-zero. We do NOT assume any sequestration from dead trees, nor is there any double counting of either benefits or emissions. Please take the time to read at least the short presentation document.

I have looked through it and I see there are two methods of computing sequestration. One from a a direct inventory which is fine for a small woods. The other is an estimate for larger forests. I was referring to the larger forests estimate when I stated that there is an implied assumption of dead trees in the count which is adjusted in the estimate.

I can understand not counting the dead trees. I'm saying the estimate accounts for the dead trees in some way and, there are many variables that affect the sequestration which are impossible to account for.

Ken

[Sugar Bear]

Somebody from the remote suburbs/outskirts of Ottawa needs to spend more time driving in their car around the remote suburbs of New Your City.

That ill put things in proper perspective for them.

Guaranteed!

[PaulRenaud]

I said I was done with this thread, but wanted to say the following. Although I have not seen anything offered to convince me Maple Syrup production has any significant position in global warming, I have enjoyed reading this thread. Even though it has been mostly a 2-3 person discussion (which suggest to me there's not a lot of concern among producers). I do want to compliment you on your passion PaulRanauld and your dogged determination. Although I remain unconvinced this discussion has fostered some thought and consideration on the topic. You have undoubtedly put a lot of time into it. I compliment you on your hard work.

Thank you. Note that you do not need to be motivated by climate to benefit from becoming net-zero. If you look at the details in the material on our website you'll see that there are significant efficiency benefits (which of course varies by producer). The calculators in the GHG Toolkit can be used to benchmark your heating efficiency for example, and the suggestions on how to improve evaporator efficiency can double the efficacy of the average wood evaporator.

[PaulRenaud]

I have looked through it and I see there are two methods of computing sequestration. One from a a direct inventory which is fine for a small woods. The other is an estimate for larger forests. I was referring to the larger forests estimate when I stated that there is an implied assumption of dead trees in the count which is adjusted in the estimate.

I can understand not counting the dead trees. I'm saying the estimate accounts for the dead trees in some way and, there are many variables that affect the sequestration which are impossible to account for.

Ken

Hi Ken,

The calculators in the GHG Toolkit can be used for either a direct inventory, or to extrapolate for a larger homogeneous sugarbush by taking a detailed inventory in 1 hectare and multiplying by the number of hectares. Neither method counts dead trees.

I'm currently putting the finishing touches on an update to the GHG toolkit that adds a simplified method based on number of taps, a multi-sector method that can be used with larger, non-homogenous sugar bushes, and a method for using a basal survey if you have one. In total, there are a half dozen variations on how to calculate sequestration in the new toolkit, but none of them account for dead trees or undergrowth.

Perhaps you are thinking about the allometric regression equations used in forestry to calculate sequestration? These do factor in all sources of biomass including leave litter, undergrowth, stumps, dead trees, etc. We do not use this approach because none of the allometric equations have ever been calibrated for use in a well-managed sugarbush. They are better suited for the forestry applications for which they have been calibrated.

There is room to improve the method of calculating sequestration that we use in the GHG Toolkit and I continue to research this. For example, we are using average growth rates that do not factor in the superior crown development in a well-managed sugarbush. Overall, we've been careful to ensure that our calculation is slightly conservative so that folks who use it don't get a nasty surprise down the road as we tune the calculator. In any event it is well within reach of most maple syrup producers to become net-zero even under conservative carbon budget assumptions.

Cheers, paul

[TapTapTap]

Way better than cutting them down and building houses. Seems like a win-win situation for the maple industry in any case. More research and far more discussion of this topic is needed.

I'll say that I'm supportive. But I'm also skeptical because my awareness is very limited and it's obviously an extremely complex and specific to each producers operations and their forest.

In response to your comment on better than cutting them down for building - it seems a lot more complicated and is perhaps a better option than concrete construction. Concrete accounts for 8% of the world carbon emissions. So my point is that it makes sense to continue to promote the forestry industry for building products. As you indicated in a previous post, you could expect a long sequestration for these products. So the irony could be that cutting more forest is a better method.

There'll be a lot more discussion for some time to come.

Ken

[DrTimPerkins]

So the irony could be that cutting more forest is a better method.

Yes, lumber construction is far better than concrete. While the wood (carbon) used in construction is tied up for a long time, cut trees no longer capture carbon. It takes a good amount of time for growth to reach high levels of carbon capture again, whereas a sugarbush continues to suck up carbon steadily.

[TapTapTap]

So Paul, How did you calculate the efficiency of your evaporator?
Ken

[PaulRenaud]

Hi Ken, its all described in the guidance document on my website. .... cheers, paul