Checking sugar

[Beweller]

Sap was running on Dec 14, again yesterday, and I was measuring the sugar content. I found I have measured 16 trees twice! A big mistake!

I find that the average change in rank position was just over 5. The first ranking tree stayed first, but the second ranking trees on 12/14 came in as 3rd and 7th rank on 1/2.

Absolute numbers from 3.3 percent (!?) to 1.0 percent, all red maples.

Any one else measured the same trees more than once?

[Haynes Forest Products]

What is the point of mesuring alot of trees and then ranking them? I would then feel inclined to give them names. We tap a few trees for ****s and giggles but in the end we tap all trees and boil all sap and have fun. I guess my point is what does all the info do for you? My other question is why drill hole in trees that your not going to use right away? seems like tree damage for no reason.

[Russell Lampron]

The main reason to check sugar content and mark the trees is for future thinning purposes. If you have to cut down one tree that is too close to another it helps in the decision of which one to keep. For testing purposes you only make a small hole. It doesn't take much to get a drop or 2 of sap. In my woods trees with needles on them and Beeches are the first to go.

[Haynes Forest Products]

I understand the theory but didnt Beweller just shoot down the test and remove based on the results? I would think that if you have to decide what tree is going to go there are alot of other factors. Size,health,location and then sugar output averaged over time?

[Buckeye mapler]

hell sugar content can change at different times of the day (though it may be slightly) let alone different times of the week or year.

[Russell Lampron]

Sugar content does change constantly but generally a tree that has a high sugar content will always have a high sugar content compared to a tree that test low. Tree size, health and location are important in deciding which one to remove but if you know the sugar content that helps in the decision too. If you had 2 trees that were growing too close to each other other and you had to remove one which one would you remove? The one that tests 4% or the one beside it that tests 1.5%? If you never tested it you could cut the 4% tree down and not even know it.

[Beweller]

Haynes,

I looked back at my data, and all I can say is that Genghis Khan, 37 inch dbh and 2.3 percent, is a real keeper. On the other hand, Tony Levolsier, 8 inch dbh and 1.0 percent, is not carrying his weight and at 86 gallons of sap to make one gallon of syrup, is not worth tapping and is not likely to make the cut.

The change in sugar content to make a change in rank order (based on the sugar content averaged for the two mesurements) varied from 0.35 percent to 0.05 percent. The measurements are certainly not better than 0.1 percent, probably not better than 0.2 percent, so there is a substantial uncertainty in rank order.

Maybe changing 5 places in rank order is not as bad a result as it sounds. It is good enough to pick out the (in my opinion) the junk trees.

[Buckeye mapler]

Russell,
I get what your saying. it only makes sense, but what is ranking a tree all about? checking sugar content from trees is one thing, maybe keeping a log of the sugar content throughout the year even, so you know that a certain tree has the potential to carry say 2.5% where another has never went over 2.2% at any time during the year. then you may sit down at the end of the year at thinning time and write down which trees are staying and which are going. it sounds as if beweller has stepped out in the woods and started checking sugar content daily and positions are changing by narrow margins. at that point i would say you need to look at both trees and determine which one is healthier.???

[Beweller]

I pull Haynes' leg and no one laughs?

[Buckeye mapler]

**** I am just starting out here man, I thought this sounded funny, but I am sure there are things I havent heard of. I was just clarifying what I understood to be true. :confused:

[Haynes Forest Products]

I was laughing! I just dont remember Tony in my history books as being this horrible world conquer.