UVM Spout and fittings

[DrTimPerkins]

During my presentation this past Saturday at the North American Maple Syrup Council meeting in Wisconsin I introduced some new fittings that Wade Bosley and I (UVM PMRC) have developed and tested over the past few years and will be testing further over the 2024 maple season. While I can't go into it really deeply in a short post, there are three main things:

1. Barb-Spout. The barrel (nose) is considerably shorter than a regular maple spout to reduce the amount of outer edge wood/xylem tissue that is blocked off by standard spouts. Sap flow and sugar content is highest in the other rings of wood, so this spout is designed to allow better and faster access to sap flow in that area. In order to maintain stability due to the shorter barrel, the spout has a series of graduated barbs (much like a ring-shank nail). The first pair of barbs engages in the wood, the next pair in the bark, and the last two provide a positive stop so spouts are not overdriven. If using in thick-barked trees, the larger flakes of bark should be scraped off first. We’ve seen a 10-23% improvement in sap yield in our testing over 2 yrs.

2. Arc-Flow Fittings. These fittings have a curved design which is designed to reduce friction and turbulence in fitting junctions. The Arc-Flow design can be incorporated into spouts, tees, saddles, end-tees, etc. In modeling calculations, it provides a 5-10% improvement in sap yield. Note that unlike a normal tee, the post faces downward instead of outward (away from the tree). This is so it can be easily flipped over for tapping below the lateral line. Only one end-line fitting needs to be made with this design as it can be used on either the right or the left side of the tree. The other thing that’ll be done on all these fittings is to bevel the connection edges at a 45° to reduce turbulence and friction between the liquid and fitting when entering and exiting the fitting. I've posted several videos we've made during testing at: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZP4fDl-nB9_rStVXy3kN7muW8AXvxphj to help show turbulence inside the various types of fittings, and why the Arc-Flow fittings are superior to standard fittings.

3. External Maple Tubing Fittings This fitting is designed to replace barbed fittings that go INSIDE of tubing with fittings that fasten EXTERNALLY. Thus there is no restriction to flow and no place for microbial masses to build up. These can be configured to spouts, saddles, unions, tees, etc. There is a small clip with a barb that goes on each leg to secure the tubing in place. The internal passage is slightly tapered to accommodate variations in tubing sizes and to snug up the tubing tightly into the fitting with a tubing tool so it will be vacuum tight. It is designed to help with the 3/16” tubing clogging issue, but could also be used for 5/16” tubing to reduce frictional losses in lateral lines.

Photos of these are at: https://photos.google.com/album/AF1QipOIFJ_bFUNM1s17KEc13x4oXuqsQTIwKaoehUeg (I hope that link works)

UVM has filed patent applications for each of these and for several embodiment (variations). We’ve been working with a company in Vermont to design and prototype these fittings since the designs require somewhat complicated injection molding tools to construct. This company (Middle Valley Maple) will do both direct mailing to producers as well as distribute via any maple equipment company who wishes to carry these fittings. Cost should be about the same as standard fittings. More information will be available after testing in the 2023 season.

We’ve ordered the test molds and hope to have some units produced shortly after the new year. They will be tested by researchers and Maple Extension folks as well as selected maple producers during the 2023 season.

I'll be presenting this information at the Lake Erie Maple Expo on Nov 11-12, 2022.

[Swingpure]

That all sounds interesting and when they become available to the back yarders, I would like to try some.

Are the barbed fitting harder to remove?

Thanks

[ToadHill]

Hi Doc,

Interesting info. Unfortunately the link didn't work.

Randy

[Pdiamond]

Well Dr. Tim the photo link did not work, sorry. The spouts sound very interesting. Do you have any estimates on the wound channel it leaves or is it to early to tell.

[DRoseum]

Link does not appear to be working.

Will barbed spouts include check valve option?

Very interested in the external fittings. Been wondering for a few years why John guest style fittings haven't been developed / used in maple tubing application for all the reasons cited. Perhaps cost?

[DrTimPerkins]

Link does not appear to be working.

Not sure why. Will work on it.


Will barbed spouts include check valve option?

There is no reason why the barb or the arc-flow could not be incorporated into a CV spout or adapter.


Very interested in the external fittings. Been wondering for a few years why John guest style fittings haven't been developed / used in maple tubing application for all the reasons cited. Perhaps cost?

The major drawback to Sharkbite and John Guest style fittings is cost. They are quite highly engineered and complicated in their construction, thus expensive. Furthermore, John Guest fittings won't hold up well in tension (they come apart when you pull hard on the tubing) under the various temperatures (hot in summer, freezing in winter) that maple tubing experiences. Our goals were to make an external tubing fitting that was inexpensive, easy to install (with the same tools maple producers use currently), reusable, and could function under conditions that maple fittings experience.

[DrTimPerkins]

Hopefully this link works https://photos.app.goo.gl/RkiKT2cTsutzQMq2A

[DrTimPerkins]

Are the barbed fitting harder to remove?

Sure are. That is the way they are designed to function. Having a shorter barrel means less gripping surface of the spout barrel inside the taphole. This would make them more subject to heaving or coming out if a branch fell on the line. Adding the barbs increases the gripping power of the (shortened) spout considerably.

[wobbletop]

Hopefully this link works https://photos.app.goo.gl/RkiKT2cTsutzQMq2A

That works.

[ecp]

Any plans for a 2 piece spout option in mind?

[DrTimPerkins]

Any plans for a 2 piece spout option in mind?

The original design of the spout we used in testing from 2018-2022 was a straight-through spout simply for ease in prototyping (simplest to machine out of polycarbonate as opposed to injection-molding).

The current design is a one-piece spout with the added Arc-Flow design (curved outflow).

There is no reason it could not also be made as a two-piece (spout + stubby) as well, or have a CV incorporated. The new spout design is designed to solve the problem of blocking off the most recent tree rings, which happen to be the most productive in terms of sap flow and highest sap sugar content. The Arc-Flow design on the outflow channel is designed to reduce friction in the lateral lines by reducing turbulence that occurs. This friction is most apparent at tee fittings but occurs anytime that fluid (gases and liquids) moves through a fitting or tubing system.

[DRoseum]

Will the spouts and arc fittings incorporate the external connector design vs. traditional internal barb ?

[DrTimPerkins]

Will the spouts and arc fittings incorporate the external connector design vs. traditional internal barb ?

There are a number of different combinations that COULD be made. What variants are actually made will depend upon the manufacturer and distributor(s) of these spouts and fittings. I'm not involved in that.

[mainebackswoodssyrup]

Great work, very interesting stuff.

[DrTimPerkins]

https://www.themaplenews.com/video/a-barbed-spout-dr-tim-unveils-new-spout-and-t-fitting-design-/119/

[mainebackswoodssyrup]

Nice........ Will be looking for them when they're available

[DrTimPerkins]

Nice........ Will be looking for them when they're available

That'll depend upon testing in the 2023 season. We've developed them over several years, and tested them the past 3 yrs at PMRC (Underhill, VT). This year we'll have some out in woods from OH to VT and from Quebec to WV and places in between.

[Sugar Bear]

During my presentation this past Saturday at the North American Maple Syrup Council meeting in Wisconsin I introduced some new fittings that Wade Bosley and I (UVM PMRC) have developed and tested over the past few years and will be testing further over the 2024 maple season. While I can't go into it really deeply in a short post, there are three main things:

1. Barb-Spout. The barrel (nose) is considerably shorter than a regular maple spout to reduce the amount of outer edge wood/xylem tissue that is blocked off by standard spouts. Sap flow and sugar content is highest in the other rings of wood, so this spout is designed to allow better and faster access to sap flow in that area. In order to maintain stability due to the shorter barrel, the spout has a series of graduated barbs (much like a ring-shank nail). The first pair of barbs engages in the wood, the next pair in the bark, and the last two provide a positive stop so spouts are not overdriven. If using in thick-barked trees, the larger flakes of bark should be scraped off first. We’ve seen a 10-23% improvement in sap yield in our testing over 2 yrs.



In the above did you mean to use the words "these outer" where you have used the words "the other"?

I am uncertain by the use of the word "the other" in this context, as it is not as tight binding as the words "these outer" would be with regards to what it refers to.

Thanks for clarifying.

[DrTimPerkins]

In the above did you mean to use the words "these outer"

You are correct. It should read:

1. Barb-Spout. The barrel (nose) is considerably shorter than a regular maple spout to reduce the amount of outer edge wood/xylem tissue that is blocked off by standard spouts. Sap flow and sugar content is highest in these outer rings of wood, so this spout is designed to allow better and faster access to sap flow in that area.

[Maples Maple]

Dr. Perkins,

You stated:
2. Arc-Flow Fittings. These fittings have a curved design which is designed to reduce friction and turbulence in fitting junctions. The Arc-Flow design can be incorporated into spouts, tees, saddles, end-tees, etc. In modeling calculations, it provides a 5-10% improvement in sap yield. Note that unlike a normal tee, the post faces downward instead of outward (away from the tree). This is so it can be easily flipped over for tapping below the lateral line. Only one end-line fitting needs to be made with this design as it can be used on either the right or the left side of the tree. The other thing that’ll be done on all these fittings is to bevel the connection edges at a 45° to reduce turbulence and friction between the liquid and fitting when entering and exiting the fitting. I've posted several videos we've made during testing at: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...kN7muW8AXvxphj to help show turbulence inside the various types of fittings, and why the Arc-Flow fittings are superior to standard fittings.

You use the word turbulence multiple times (I bolded). With my journal reviewer hat on, are you sure that turbulence is the correct word. I am not sure what the Reynolds number is for sap coming out of tree but I would be surprised if it was fully developed turbulent flow. Laminar vs turbulent is important for drag, any build up on the walls, etc. If you have published work on this, please point to the paper. I could be total off base also so please correct me if I am wrong.

Thank you

[jrgagne99]

Engineer here with a background in fluid dynamics. I had the same thought... I would be surprised if Reynolds number there is greater than 2000, let alone if the sap is even flowing at full-pipe? I'm not disputing the experimental results, but I wonder if the turbulence/friction hypothesis is correct. Did the internal flow radius alone produce increased sap yields, or was it the barbs at the tip of the tap as well? Reducing turbulence and friction has a nice marketing ring to it, I'm just not sure that's the actual mechanism.

One way to test it might be to diagonally insert a thin metal tube into the tap-hole from above the fitting and measure the delta-P across the Arc-Flow fitting during sap-flow event. Compare this to a similar measurement on a standard right-angle tap. You would probably want to measure the sap flow during these tests as well to get dP-vs-Q for each.

Edit: I just saw the youtube videos of the 5 different configurations, and the qualitative differences are clear. I just wonder how much those differences affect the vacuum level in the tap-hole. Also if the flow rates shown are prototypical for sap flow.

[DrTimPerkins]

You use the word turbulence multiple times (I bolded). With my journal reviewer hat on, are you sure that turbulence is the correct word. I am not sure what the Reynolds number is for sap coming out of tree but I would be surprised if it was fully developed turbulent flow. Laminar vs turbulent is important for drag, any build up on the walls, etc. If you have published work on this, please point to the paper. I could be total off base also so please correct me if I am wrong.

I guess I was unaware that my post on MapleTrader was being peer-reviewed? :D Turbulence would seem to me to be the proper term...would you suggest another?

There were no papers published prior to the announcement at the NAMSC meeting in Wisconsin in October, although we've talked about (and lab and field tested as appropriate) and published several different concepts on sap flow/yield in tubing systems over the past 15 yrs (just not these particular things). In this case publishing would have been a bad idea given that these are (potentially) patentable. Now that those applications have been filed, we are starting to write about them.

The information we have on flow dynamics in trees and in lateral lines under vacuum conditions is not well known or available in the peer-review or grey literature. Typically we keep certain bits of information like this close to the vest until we have a really good understanding and have repeated measurements over several years and conditions. Several reasons for that approach that I won't go into unless folks are interested.

[DrTimPerkins]

Engineer here with a background in fluid dynamics. ...

Admittedly I am not an engineer with a background in fluid dynamics. Sap flow in a 5/16" tubing system under vacuum mixed with gases (leaks and tree-derived) is quite complex and highly dynamic. I have spend a good part of the past 20 yrs observing and measuring sap flow from trees and in tubing systems. I can't say for sure whether the turbulence/friction hypothesis is correct, but am happy to have the conversation. Doing it within this forum is rather kludgey however.

I think there is some confusion here regarding two of these things. The barb-spout is one, the arc-flow feature is another. There was no difference in the internal diameter (what you refer to as flow radius) between the control spout and the barb-spout. Testing of the barb-spout was done with straight-through spouts (both control and barb-spout). The only difference was the length of the spout barrel (reduced in the barb-spout) and the barbs themselves. Otherwise, these were as identical as possible and machined from the same polycarbonate stock. We tried a number of variants of different spout features for a few years before settling on the short barrel/barb features. Then we tested that for the past 3 yrs with good results.

The arc-flow feature is more of a theoretical concept based upon what we know about sap flow/air movement in these systems, modeling studies, and some lab-based simulations. We have not been able to do field trials as yet because nobody makes anything like this and the design isn't amenable to small-scale production (machining fittings). Rather, the parts have to be injection-molded (not cheap, not quick, not easy). We are in the process of getting that done now.

Bottom line is:
1. Yes, I understand that people have questions and are eager to hear answers.
2. I try to answer those questions during presentations I started in WI and will continue this spring.
3. Unfortunately, this forum is not really conducive to going through the entire thing well.
4. Publication of papers on this is in progress.
5. Large-scale field trials are (hopefully) going to happen in spring 2023.

So best I can say is to stay tuned.

[ebliese]

Am I correct in presuming the large scale field trials will include people on buckets? It was very interesting to read of the 10-23% increase in sap yield but wondered if that was primarily on vacuum or would apply to buckets.

[DrTimPerkins]

Am I correct in presuming the large scale field trials will include people on buckets?

We will be testing on vacuum only in 2023. Once we get that nailed down, we (or someone) will likely test it on gravity.

[jrgagne99]

Agree that the forum is a klugey vehicle for technical discussion. I for one will definitely stay tuned for continued results presentation, good, bad or otherwise! Sounds like the barbs it could be nearly as big as CVs were a decade or more ago!

[Maples Maple]

I am looking forward to the results also. Video 4 does look like it might be turbulent.
Adding gasses and vacuum definitely complicates things. I am an engineer but not a turbulent fluids expert.

I understand keeping things initially as a trade secret or patent. I think that it is an interesting engineering problem and was (am) hoping someone was (is) diving in deeper.

Good luck!

[220 maple]

Dr. Tim
Just talked with Dr. Rechlin, glad to hear that you got some sent down are way, they need tested in the Walnut trees that are being tapped, Dr. Rechlin and my friend that has the 1000 walnut tap operation keep real good records! You will get valuable data from them!
Mark 220 Maple

[DrTimPerkins]

Just talked with Dr. Rechlin, glad to hear that you got some sent down are way, they need tested in the Walnut trees that are being tapped, Dr. Rechlin and my friend that has the 1000 walnut tap operation keep real good records! You will get valuable data from them!
Mark 220 Maple

They're being tested in Ohio, WV, NY, VT, and Qbc this spring. Just sent out to all the test sites yesterday. Polycarbonate version of Barb-Spout and regular spout (control) are being tested, but they can be made in nylon as well.

22652 22653

[DrTimPerkins]

One way to test it might be to diagonally insert a thin metal tube into the tap-hole from above the fitting and measure the delta-P across the Arc-Flow fitting during sap-flow event. Compare this to a similar measurement on a standard right-angle tap. You would probably want to measure the sap flow during these tests as well to get dP-vs-Q for each.

Yes, that would work well in a controlled situation where flows were relatively constant. Doing that under varying sap flow conditions in the field is considerably more problematic, especially since the influence of any one spout or fitting is likely to be small. That approach would also require repeated measurements under a variety of different sap flow conditions and then extrapolating that over a season.

Alternatively, what we ARE planning to do is to measure and record the vacuum level at both the mainline entrance and at the end of the same lateral line for lines that incorporate the Arc-Tees and Barb-Spouts for other lines without Arc-fittings. So we're looking at the differential vacuum levels across the lateral line. Since there will be several fittings in the line, and the effect of each fitting is additive, we should (theoretically) get a higher signal. We will do multiple, season-long measurements and recordings of these data on several lines of each type (standard fittings and arc-flow fittings), and also measure sap yields from (multiple) systems incorporating each of these fitting types. There will be a total of 4 lateral lines of each type (standard vs arc-tee) with sensors at the start and end of each lateral line that are measured over the season to determine if there are any vacuum differences and under what flow conditions. We will also be measuring sap yield from 6 mainlines of each type (standard vs arc-tee) measured over the season. All these 12 mainlines are located in the same area with the same population of trees. Mainlines were randomly assigned to the treatments (Arc-Spouts/Arc-Tees) or standard (90 deg spouts and 90 deg Tees).

Each of the lateral lines will have 3 taps/lateral to keep that constant. Lateral line lengths will be similar for each system. All 12 mainlines will be operating off the same vacuum pump, but each mainline goes to a different custom mini-releaser equipped with a counter. These are calibrated so we know precisely how much sap if collected for each dump.

In short...this type of work isn't as easy as doing one measurement across a fitting once or twice. We're looking at vacuum and sap yield across an entire section of the sugarbush over an entire season. Not cheap, not easy...but the results are more meaningful and more representative of what maple producers are interested in.

That is....if we can get the systems set up in time. We just got the fittings a couple of days ago.

[Sugar Bear]

Dr. Perkins,

You stated:
2. Arc-Flow Fittings. These fittings have a curved design which is designed to reduce friction and turbulence in fitting junctions. The Arc-Flow design can be incorporated into spouts, tees, saddles, end-tees, etc. In modeling calculations, it provides a 5-10% improvement in sap yield. Note that unlike a normal tee, the post faces downward instead of outward (away from the tree). This is so it can be easily flipped over for tapping below the lateral line. Only one end-line fitting needs to be made with this design as it can be used on either the right or the left side of the tree. The other thing that’ll be done on all these fittings is to bevel the connection edges at a 45° to reduce turbulence and friction between the liquid and fitting when entering and exiting the fitting. I've posted several videos we've made during testing at: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...kN7muW8AXvxphj to help show turbulence inside the various types of fittings, and why the Arc-Flow fittings are superior to standard fittings.

You use the word turbulence multiple times (I bolded). With my journal reviewer hat on, are you sure that turbulence is the correct word. I am not sure what the Reynolds number is for sap coming out of tree but I would be surprised if it was fully developed turbulent flow. Laminar vs turbulent is important for drag, any build up on the walls, etc. If you have published work on this, please point to the paper. I could be total off base also so please correct me if I am wrong.

Thank you

I am a former software engineer by institutionalized profession. Otherwise, I am a self-proclaimed idiot that loves to sit around doing among other sings pondering the efficiency of fluid dynamics inside tubing. I am not very good at it, but at least through the help of the people on maple trader I have learned how to make a abundant supply of great tasting maple syrup in recent years, a far cry from the char broiled stuff my brother and I made in the early 70's.

Worked for IBM for a short stint doing nothing and making nothing, $ included, then designed and coded software, with a small group of people, used by grocery chains around the world to keep track of the UPC's purchased by a name and address, at any given store on any given day. Back in the days when accessible memory provided by the machine was extraordinarily limited so it took at least a medium sized brain to work the system such that you could quickly access these massive volumes of data.

These days my computer time is limited to things like Maple Trader and other wonderful forums.

There is no part of the word Turbulence that does not make sense to me here. And it would blow my brain to bits, if math and physics were to prove that there is not a way to improve on the current rigging that is used to address it.

Perhaps Vortexes might be a better word, but its six of one and six of the same to me, a layman in this field.

Now that is just coming from me, a self-proclaimed idiot.

[DrTimPerkins]

A couple of new videos on installing the Barb-Spout and Arc-Fittings

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL16D9bAbIk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQIACHdXb_A

[mainebackswoodssyrup]

Thanks for posting. I was wondering about making the connections. Y-fittings were always a pain in the butt for me so was curious about these. I am sure with some practice, it wouldn't be that bad in the field.

[peteinvermont]

What a luxury it is to have PMRC and crew to actually test all the things our brains think up during hours of tapping. I've thought a million times about how to access the sap in the outer rings and Dr. Tim and team have done it...Genius.

[littleTapper]

Any early results/observations from the 2023 season available yet? Curious minds want to know :)

[DrTimPerkins]

Sorry, we typically don't talk about studies that are in progress. Our season as well as the seasons of most of the cooperators testing the spouts/fittings this spring are still underway.

[littleTapper]

Sorry, we typically don't talk about studies that are in progress. Our season as well as the seasons of most of the cooperators testing the spouts/fittings this spring are still underway.

Yeah, I suppose. I had an idea hit me for a new style of T, and it reminded me of this thread :)

[DrTimPerkins]

Any early results/observations from the 2023 season available yet? Curious minds want to know :)

Coming soon... :D

[DrTimPerkins]

Unfortunately I can't seem to upload any graphics, so here are the preliminary results from the Barb-spout trials:

Study 1. 27” Hg vacuum, all on the same pump. 40 trees per treatment (total of 80 taps). Avg 12.1” dbh for each treatment. All tapped same day. 2” deep tapholes, 5/16” spouts. New drops. Roughly all tapped on south-quadrant. All spouts are polycarbonate and made by the same injection-molding company. The only differences are the length of the barrel (Barb-spout shorter) and the barbs on the Barb-spout. Sap collected in individual chambers and measured at the end of the season.

Treatments
- Standard spout with Arc-connector 36.7 gal sap/tap
- Barb spout with Arc-Connector 41.2 gpt (4.5 gal more, 12.2% increase).

Study 2. 22-24” Hg vacuum, same pump. 6 mainlines / 3 per treatment. Total of 344 taps / 320 taps (avg 111 per mainline). All tapped within a few days by same person. 2” deep tapholes, 5/16” spouts. New drops. All spouts are polycarbonate and made by the same injection-molding company. The only differences in the spouts are the length of the barrel (Barb-spout shorter) and the barbs on the Barb-spout. Sap from each mainline flows through individual releasers equipped with counters and recorded for each sap run.

Treatments
- 90 deg polycarbonate spouts/standard tees 24.0 gpt
- Barb spouts with Arc-Tees 26.5 gpt (2.5 gal/tap more, 10.3% increase)
(note: a sensor on one of the three mainlines with the Barb-spout leaked, lowering the vacuum on that mainline, but the data from that line were left in)

The sap from the Barb-spout was marginally sweeter, so the overall increase in syrup yield (both studies) is 13%.

Those results are in the same ballpark as those we found during the development phase.

We are waiting on results from other cooperators.

[littleTapper]

Fantastic!!!

[mainebackswoodssyrup]

Very interesting for sure. Does UVM have a waiting list cause you might need one??!!

[collinsmapleman2012]

so what's the timeline on production/availability to producers?

[DrTimPerkins]

so what's the timeline on production/availability to producers?

They should be available to producers later this summer or early-fall directly from Middle Valley Maple or participating maple equipment suppliers.

[PCFarms]

I think that the barbed spouts is a great idea - its encouraging that the yields are showing that indeed improved yields are possible.

I however suspect that the arc connections and external barbs are not going to result in a noticeable increase in yields. The friction loss across these fittings is miniscule to start with (I did some simple calculations to check), so there would be not much of an opportunity to improve. Friction loss would only really come close to significant figures with many dozens of tap's worth of sap flow.

Did you do any tests with only barb spouts and not arc connectors so that you can determine from which innovation the improved yields come from?

[DrTimPerkins]

The Barb-spout incorporates a curved tubing connection by design. I agree that the overall impact of the arc is likely be small (and our calculations indicate that as well), but if it’s adds even a tiny amount then why not do it? More importantly, that small effect is additive, so having several small increases can begin to add up at peak sap flow rates.

The barbs on the proximal end (tip of the barrel) are necessary to keep the spout from heaving out given the shortened contact area of the spout with the inside of the taphole.

[PCFarms]

I guess my only thought would be that it might be easier to sell if people aren't worried about the arc making the spout more difficult to install, or if the arc somehow adds to the manufacturing cost making it more expensive to the customer (me! - count me in once these are available!)

[DrTimPerkins]

…if the arc somehow adds to the manufacturing cost making it more expensive to the customer (me! - count me in once these are available!)

Neither of those should be a concern. The arc is a bit more complex tooling, but not substantially more expensive.

Installation takes a little getting used to, but after you’ve done a few it is simple. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TQIACHdXb_A

[jakeleveto]

I'm just about to finish my early order for the 2024 season, I couldn't find any contact info for Middle Valley Maple to try these spouts, do you have any info (phone, website, email) for them?

[DrTimPerkins]

The UVM PMRC report on the Barb Spout results is at: https://www.themaplenews.com/story/proctor-reports-on-2023-season-barb-spout-results/473/

Briefly, in our research we found a 12.2% increase with the Barb Spout in one study and a 10.3% increase in the other compared to control spouts. A cooperating maple producer and equipment supplier in Ohio (where they had very good conditions this year) had a 36% increase with the Barb Spout.

The Middle Valley Maple website isn't quite ready yet.

In the meantime, you can order by emailing bob@middlevalleymaple.com

or by calling Bob Carpenter at:
802-433-1563 Ext 120 - Work
802-431-3472 - Cell

[Pdiamond]

Dr. Perkins do you know the price that Middle Valley Maple is charging for the spouts?

[jakeleveto]

The UVM PMRC report on the Barb Spout results is at: https://www.themaplenews.com/story/proctor-reports-on-2023-season-barb-spout-results/473/

Briefly, in our research we found a 12.2% increase with the Barb Spout in one study and a 10.3% increase in the other compared to control spouts. A cooperating maple producer and equipment supplier in Ohio (where they had very good conditions this year) had a 36% increase with the Barb Spout.

The Middle Valley Maple website isn't quite ready yet.

In the meantime, you can order by emailing bob@middlevalleymaple.com

or by calling Bob Carpenter at:
802-433-1563 Ext 120 - Work
802-431-3472 - Cell

Thanks, Voicemail left

[DrTimPerkins]

Dr. Perkins do you know the price that Middle Valley Maple is charging for the spouts?

No, but it will be in the ballpark of most regular single-use plastic spouts. It isn’t any more complicated to produce than a standard spout.

[Swingpure]

When you tap in the barbed spout, do you still hear the change in tapping sounds, when you get to the right spot?

[DMF]

When you tap in the barbed spout, do you still hear the change in tapping sounds, when you get to the right spot?

I may be wrong, but I believe they have a mark on them to indicate the depth they should be set to.

[DrTimPerkins]

When you tap in the barbed spout, do you still hear the change in tapping sounds, when you get to the right spot?

Yes, the sound change is normal as is the hammer bounce. The Barb Spout does take a little more "precision" during tapping. You want to hit it squarely, otherwise it has a slight tendency to shift from side-side as it goes in. Nothing major, but it is noticeable at time.

The video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL16D9bAbIk give a bit of information.

People have also asked if it is difficult to put Arc-Flow fittings on tubing. It is not much different than a standard fitting. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQIACHdXb_A

Lastly, when these spouts are pulled, they will often pull away some bark with them. While it may be unsightly and may appear to be of concern to some folks, it should be noted that BARK is totally dead, so you're not damaging any living part of the tree. We've monitored taphole closure, and there is no difference between standard spouts and Barb Spouts. More realistically, it's a good indicator that as long as they are put in properly they do NOT come out of the taphole...that was one of the design features after all. Even though the spout barrel is shorter, they stay in the tree.

[Pdiamond]

Thank you Dr. Perkins, and as a side note welcome to Michigan., when you arrive.

[DrTimPerkins]

Thank you Dr. Perkins, and as a side note welcome to Michigan., when you arrive.

Thanks. Moving into our new place in South Lyon in mid-June.