i think if you take a look you will find that they did use on one test using a 1/4'' tap and then latter redrilled it with a 5/6''.
Printable View
i think if you take a look you will find that they did use on one test using a 1/4'' tap and then latter redrilled it with a 5/6''.
I wouldn't treat results compiled from tests on northeastern sugar maples as the same as what would happen to central plains boxelders. The trees grow so differently. Anyone that knows boxelders know they grow like weeds and are a bit tough to kill. Even if you caused a bit more wood staining with a reamed hole, they'd grow new sapwood way outward of that by the time you'd need to use that column/area again. I've cut down boxelders that have shown >1" DBH of new growth in several years.
But, I'm assuming and we know what that means :)
I also have never seen anyone managing a forest for boxelder production either.
I have collars on my drill bits so that I, and those helping me, can't tap more than 1.5" deep so as to do the minimum harm to the trees.
I've had good experience with drill bit collars. There's a little screw that fixes them in place on the drill bits. I used to use 5/16 tubing on my bits to control the depth, but the tubing kept creeping up the bit. They are mostly used by people using a drill press who want to drill holes that don't go all the way through, but only go down to a specific depth.
I'm not using them with augur bits that have a screw on the tip to pull the bit down into the hole, I use them with standard drill bits usually used for metal. I can keep turning the bit after the collar hits the trunk without any pull into the hole. In fact, any additional turning helps clean the sawdust out of the hole. Here's one of my drills with a collar on its 5/16 bit:
https://www.aphomeschoolers.com/medi...rillcollar.jpg
HowardR, interesting, but Proctor Research center says 1.75-2" is th best, and that's in past the bark. If you tap a spot with 1/4" thick bark, you're tapping 1.25" deep, if the bark is 1/2" thick you only get 1" into the tree.
When you use a drill bit collar I suggest you leave the collar back 2.25", if you tap older trees and 2.125" if you tap mostly 10-12" trees.
I found drilling without a stopper evacuate the chips better.
Reaming slightly wider does very little in terms of additional sap production, although results of any type of taphole rejuvenation strategy tend to be highly variable and strongly dependent upon the weather you get immediately after the treatment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Foster
The full study is available at https://mapleresearch.org/pub/wound0621/
There are always possible variations that can be added to any research project. The problem is that each time you add a variable (factor), you generally have to double the number of trees in the sample size. We had 80 trees in that work, so adding a "ream to the same depth" factor would have meant adding an additional 80 trees. Considering that each of the chambers to collect the sap alone cost over $1,000 each (including the generous discount from Lapierre), that would have added $80,000 in cost to the study. Multiply that by 1.53 (University indirect costs) and you're talking over $122k to add that small factor (that isn't generally used by most maple producers) into the study. Then there is the cost of setting up those additional chambers, checking on them during the season, and measuring and analyzing the results at the end of each season. Probably another $40-50k on top of the setup cost. So altogether you're looking at $160-170k to add that factor.
Good research isn't cheap, and cheap research often isn't good.