syrup to tap ratio

[steve J]

I think I saw in a post a couple weeks back that someone stated that they figured .33 gallons of syrup per tap. Is that a reliable figure for gravity systems? Or is there one set of numbers for buckets another for gravity and still another for vaccume with R/O etc.

[red maples]

yeah there is one I don't remember it but some one will I am sure. for gravity tubing on sugar maples...red are too finicky without vaccuum.
I think DR. Perkins had a good estimate number on this some time ago

If you have proper pitch for gravity tubing you may average I think .15-.25 gpt(gallon per tap) or a little more.

bucket average a little less.
and vac a little more.
The RO doesn't add to the gpt ratio all it does is remove water!!! so you can basically process more taps(sap ) on a smaller rig.

Some guys say they get .5 gpt but I gotta see that beleive it.

there are alot of variables. tree health, size, sugar content and I think the main factor is weather.

I personally would say. guess low .15 gpt, then if you come out higher you had a good year!!! but always plan for the bumber crop!!! enough wood, sap and syrup storage etc.

[Thad Blaisdell]

.5 is doable under high vacuum. I made .46 last year. If my first 4 days had gone better in the sugarhouse I would have been able to address my vacuum at 15" and would have probably been very close to the .5 gpt. I also have about 100 taps on 6" or smaller trees that need to be culled eventually, but I might as well suck the life out of them before I cut them. If you take a woods and you only do 1 tap per tree and only tap the larger trees and your vacuum is running perfectly you can do even better than .5

[PATheron]

Steve- You live in a good area for weather and that will help you. This is kind of what I figure. Gravity buckets or tubing figure on a quart per tap if you have a decent year and it isnt to warm out. Warm weather with no freezes equalls zero sap on gravity. Buckets run a bit better than gravity tube. Decent tubing setup with a dairy pump for vac quart to a third even on a bad year probly. Nice tubing setup for vac with standard installation and a liquid ring pump third to half depending on weather and how good a job you do. Half gallon per tap is getting more common with some top notch professional systems but is still definitely not the norm. Anything over a half someone has done a tremendous job, is very well versed in tubing installation and has spent so much money on the system that they have basically bought the averages and is very uncommon. Theron

[DrTimPerkins]

.5 is doable under high vacuum. I made .46 last year. If my first 4 days had gone better in the sugarhouse I would have been able to address my vacuum at 15" and would have probably been very close to the .5 gpt. I also have about 100 taps on 6" or smaller trees that need to be culled eventually, but I might as well suck the life out of them before I cut them. If you take a woods and you only do 1 tap per tree and only tap the larger trees and your vacuum is running perfectly you can do even better than .5

0.5 gal/tap is definitely doable, but you have to be doing things right to get there. At UVM PMRC, our records are:

2004 0.73 gal/tap
2005 0.52 gal/tap (with several vacuum issues)
2005 0.67 gal/tap
2007 0.53 gal/tap
2008 0.51 gal/tap (vacuum issues)
2009 0.69 gal/tap (terrific year, ~ 1/5 CV spout adapters)
2010 0.58 gal/tap (~1/5 CV spout adapters)

In 2010, we made 1,548 gal of syrup from 2,653 taps.

This isn't experimental stuff....just normal systems that are maintained well (especially during the season). We only use one tap/tree, regardless of size, and the average # taps/lateral line is in the range of 3-5.

Most important thing is probably a well designed and installed system (strive for 5, no more than 10 taps/lateral), with relatively short laterals and especially with good high vacuum levels. After that, use of new adapters each year. After that use of CV adapters, or replacement of drop lines every year or two.

[PATheron]

Dr.- Ive got 2500 taps behind my house that this is the fourth year tapping. The tubing has never been washed. The setup is at least as good as the specs you just layed out. If I do as good a job as you guys do with my vac and use it as is in your opinion would I get a lot more sap with the checkvalves than with standard new replacement spouts? I guess what Im wonderind is if you do a good job with the setup and do a good job with the vac, pump always on, in your opinion is the bacteria still messing me up a lot? Theron

[Amber Gold]

Really, one tap per lat, regardless of size? I just seems like an 18" plus tree could handle 2 taps without decreasing output. How much sap are you missing out on if you aren't putting the second tap in?

[ennismaple]

Really, one tap per lat, regardless of size? I just seems like an 18" plus tree could handle 2 taps without decreasing output. How much sap are you missing out on if you aren't putting the second tap in?

We are talking average production and not total production so 1 tap per tree will maximize your average. A 2nd tap does not produce 2x more sap - it will increase your production some but reduce your average. Plus, only 1 tap per tree means less stained wood in the tree 10, 20, 30+ years from now = more sap. In our bush we're seeing the results of 30+ years of over tapping and are removing extra taps from trees as we re-do tubing.

[PATheron]

Like Marty said if you only put one tap in your trees your averages will be better. Im reducing taps too on my trees and I was going by traditional guidelines. My concern is I dont want swiss cheese trees down the road. Other thing Ive thought about is if you lease the taps your getting a better deal with one tap per tree becouse you dont get that much out of the second tap so if you go one tap per tree youll get more sap for your money if that is a concern. You just go find another tree. Get the most bang for your buck. Plus way nicer for the tree. Theron

[Thad Blaisdell]

Other thing Ive thought about is if you lease the taps your getting a better deal with one tap per tree becouse you dont get that much out of the second tap so if you go one tap per tree youll get more sap for your money if that is a concern. You just go find another tree. Get the most bang for your buck. Plus way nicer for the tree. Theron

I guess it would be in how you look at it. The second tap costs you almost nothing, you already have done all the work, wet/dry line mainline and laterals are already in. If the tree is big enough put in the second tap. Your gpt might go down a smidge but your total gallons will go up. My rule of thumb is if I can reach around the tree and touch my hands together then 1 tap, if not then it gets two. If I planned on making a half gallon per tap at bulk rate that is about $15 per tap (using vacuum). It would cost $1 per tap if renting, $1.50 to put in a drop and spout plus .30 per year for disposable tap. So for 10 years it would cost $28 (give or take of course). Now lets say the second tap only made half as much as your first tap. That would give you $7.50 per year. That is $75 over the course of 10 years. That is now a profit of $47 per tree that you would make. 100 trees = $4700 ($470 per year at bulk rate price). To me the second tap is worth it, given that the tree is big enough.

[DrTimPerkins]

Dr.- Ive got 2500 taps behind my house that this is the fourth year tapping. The tubing has never been washed. The setup is at least as good as the specs you just layed out. If I do as good a job as you guys do with my vac and use it as is in your opinion would I get a lot more sap with the checkvalves than with standard new replacement spouts? I guess what Im wonderind is if you do a good job with the setup and do a good job with the vac, pump always on, in your opinion is the bacteria still messing me up a lot? Theron

It depends upon several factors. Very few producers can guarantee there will not be any backflow during the season. The more you can reduce backflow, the less CV adapters will help. However....if you have a mechanical releaser, you've got some backflow. Power goes out, backflow. Shut down pump to add oil, backflow. It all adds up. If any of those things happen, then CV adapters will help.

Example....last year we sought to keep the pump on unless the system was frozen up tight. We ended up with very few freezes, no never shut it off for that reason. However....the power went out three times due to various reasons. Nothing we could do about that. On one occasion the belly tank overfilled and shut off the system. Only took 5 minutes to fix, but sap went backward. And we do use mechanical releasers for most of our bush. CV adapters definitely helped in the sections they were placed in (we don't use them everywhere so we'll have comparison plots), even this year with the very abrupt end of the season which was not real amenable to their effectiveness. Overall CV adapters increased our yield by 5.1 gal/tap compared to the same system using new Clear-Straight-Through (CST) spouts. Steve Childs (Cornell) and many producers (not all) found the same trends.

[DrTimPerkins]

Really, one tap per lat, regardless of size? I just seems like an 18" plus tree could handle 2 taps without decreasing output. How much sap are you missing out on if you aren't putting the second tap in?

No...one tap per TREE. Not one tap per LAT. That is an entirely different thing.

[DrTimPerkins]

Plus, only 1 tap per tree means less stained wood in the tree 10, 20, 30+ years from now = more sap. In our bush we're seeing the results of 30+ years of over tapping and are removing extra taps from trees as we re-do tubing.

EXACTLY our motivation to using one tap per tree. After 50+ yrs of moderate tapping of large trees that had relatively slow growth rates given our high-elevation, somewhat shallow-droughty soils, we were frequently having a hard time finding good sound wood to tap into. When we switched to small spouts, we also switched to 1 tap per tree, regardless of size. It does make the average yield/tap higher, but that was not the primary reason we did it.

Now that it's been 10 yrs or more on that regime, we are considering adding a 2nd tap in some trees that can support it (large enough and have good growth rates). Haven't done it yet though.

Tim Wilmot (UVM Maple Extension based at UVM PMRC) is doing a study looking at the sap yields depending upon whether you're using 1 or 2 taps/tree. Will be a few more years before he is done.

[Thad Blaisdell]

Plus, only 1 tap per tree means less stained wood in the tree 10, 20, 30+ years from now = more sap. In our bush we're seeing the results of 30+ years of over tapping and are removing extra taps from trees as we re-do tubing.

On the tapping of trees 10-20-30 years ago my guess is that you were using the larger spouts/spiles than are used today, that would also be a factor to consider.

[ennismaple]

On the tapping of trees 10-20-30 years ago my guess is that you were using the larger spouts/spiles than are used today, that would also be a factor to consider.

7/16" spiles, pounded in very hard, more taps than recommended and using paraformaldahyde pills. It's a wonder a lot of our trees survived this long!

Our best bush last year (average per tap) was the one that's been tapped for 60+ years - it had CV spouts. When we went to stubbies with CV adapters for that bush we reduced our tap count from 450 to 400 by removing a lot of 2nd or 3rd taps. We still have some 2 and 3 tap trees but they are pretty big (2.5' dia or more). I expect when we put the stubbies in our new bush this winter we'll reduce the tap count by up to 200 taps from the 1450 that we tapped in 2010.

[Amber Gold]

I meant 1 tap per tree, not 1 per lat...thinking one thing as I'm typing.

I never did the math, but my thinking is along the lines of Thad's. I'm not as concerned with maximizing gpt average (although it is nice) as maximizing yield from the orchard while tapping the trees responsibly and not hurting the trees. It would seem to make sense that an 18" min. tree could handle 2 taps and still produce good sap yields from the second tap. Even if it's only 50%, the additional cost to install the tap is near $0, but you've gotten more sap.

I wouldn't think with the 5/16's taps and 2 tap max per tree, the tree is being over-tapped and the longterm viability of the tree would be jeapordized. Is this assumption correct? I could definitely see putting 6 taps per tree would be an issue becuase you'd run out of new areas to put taps.

Have studies been done to see what the actual output of additional taps are under high vac.? Would be nice to see if the second tap yields 75%, 50%, or 25% of the first tap.

[brookledge]

Like others have said, as improvements are made the gal. syrup to tap ratio has gone way up. I've been doing this for a long time and for me to make less than a third of a gal per tap is a horrible year. Others would die for those numbers. Most years I average in the .4s with my best year .65 gal per tap.
And I'm not running high vac. yet. I needed to put my money into other improvements like the RO to allow me to sleep. So I will switch to a liquid ring some day and that will jump my yield even more.
Keith

[DrTimPerkins]

Have studies been done to see what the actual output of additional taps are under high vac.? Would be nice to see if the second tap yields 75%, 50%, or 25% of the first tap.

It depends upon size and vacuum level, but probably on the order of 50%.

Ask this question again about a year from now. Tim Wilmot is doing that very study (partially funded by the North American Maple Syrup Council....remember to pay your penny per container to fund this program). He has one year of results, but like most work here, he wants at least two before discussing it.

[Amber Gold]

Keith, are you getting those kinds of numbers because your trees are nice and sweet or because they flow lots of sap? What's your season average SSC and sap collected per tap?

Dr Tim, please keep us posted on his study. So even at 50%, the nominal cost of materials for the extra tap make sense.