Cdl zap bac

[mountainvan]

Alright already... first of all I am not a spokesmodel for any maple equipment producer or am getting any reimbursement. I am a full time maple farmer who wants to get the most sap/syrup I can in the short season we have. I did use the cv2 last year in one sugarbush because of squirrels. The little suckers chew on everything except the hard plastic spouts. I have not used the zap bac for three years running, just two. Still an good value for this farmer. Last year was the first year in awhile I kept good records. This is mainly due to me trying to make a living and stay amongst the living. Record keeping seemed unimportant at that time. Last year I did keep records of the sap I brought in from each bush, mainly just to see what was getting me good sap and what I needed to change. I have 5 main bushes, 4 with Alamo vacuum and one 3/16 gravity bush. I used new cdl white spout, new zap bac spout on one year old drops, and stubbie with zap bac adaptor on three-five year old drops. Here’s what I got in gals of sap/tap.

New everything -21.5
New zap bac- 24.17
New cv2-13.1
New zap bac adaptor- 20.7 Alamo
16 3/16 tubing
As you can see the cv2 spouts were not the best for me last year, or the 3/16 bush. I do have a clue to why the cv2 spouts did not do well.
Lots of gunk in the spouts after no real sap flow for most of March gummed up the balls in the cv2 spouts, leaving them either closed or open and not functioning the way they were designed. Some were still working as designed, but not many.
I made these observations while pulling spouts and flushing each drop with cleaning water while the vacuum was on.
Since the zap bacs are like a regular spout, just antimicrobial, they did not gum up and worked as designed.
I have had some success with the cv2 in past years, but last year was too much lost sap which means less syrup which is equals less income. Last year was probably an anomaly, but maybe not. I can’t take the chance of losing income because of one little ball not working correctly.
I am not posting this looking for a quarrel, just giving my experience with the various spouts last year.
Tomorrow begins the sap extravaganza of 2019, so I will not be responding to this post or any other about the pro or cons of various spouts. Have a most excellent sugaring season.

[spud]

Thank you Mountainvan for responding. I find it very odd that the CV2 spouts only gave you 13.1 GPT. You did mention that the CV2 spouts were used in a squirrel invested woods where they chew ( Everything ) except the CV2 spouts. Is it possible that you suffered very low vacuum in that woods due to the squirrels? Low vacuum will cause sap to move very slow or not at all at times. Is it possible the vacuum and sap flow was restricted due to chews in the tubing? It is possible this is what caused (still) sap to gunk up in the CV2 spouts? The PMRC has tested GPT on ten year old drops with CV2 spouts and the numbers do not drop that much over the ten year time frame. My guess is the CV2 spouts were not the problem for your low production. I wish you the best this season.

Spud

[DrTimPerkins]

Van...thank you for the numbers, although I'd need more detail on the age and size (diameter) of droplines for all your sites to understand better.

I don't discount that you found those results, but I don't think you can draw any real conclusions from it for a variety of reasons. Spud mentions one possibility, which is probably a very good guess. Small changes in vacuum results in BIG changes in yield. I'd also suggest tree size as a possible factor, or perhaps location differences. Last spring (2018) in particular was notoriously bad for microclimate effects, with some people getting great production and others just a short distance away doing very poorly. This is why when we do research we try to eliminate all those extraneous factors to the extent possible, by making sure the vacuum is the same throughout the area, the trees are the same average size (typically within 0.1%), and all the trees we compare are within the same area. Another thing you have going on that might confound interpretation of results is a mix of 5/16" tubing pumped vs 3/16" natural vacuum. I've said this MANY times, but the two lateral/dropline tubing sizes are VERY different in how they respond during aging, with yields from 5/16" tubing being mainly affected by sanitation, which we understand very well, and 3/16" tubing being affected by sanitation AND plugging (mainly at the tee) issues, which greatly increases the complexity and variability of the results. Using new spouts, CV spouts, or Zap-Bac spouts does not (and cannot) address the plugging issue, because that is not where the problem is occurring. At this point the only thing we know for sure that solves the 3/16" plugging issue is drop replacement, but we're hopeful that chemical sanitation will also work (and both UVM and Cornell will be testing that this spring).

Like others, I think yield is the primary measure of spout performance. I don't care one bit what it looks like when the spouts are pulled, since the sap is done running by that point.

Unfortunately there is relatively little research on the Zap-Bac. We did some work early on (on silver-impregnated fittings) and found they worked well the first year, but that performance dropped off quickly, so that yields were no better in the second year than simply putting on a new spout. We dropped the project, partly due to that and partly due to the fact that we are organic maple producers and this product is not allowed in organic maple production. I would also like to know whether, and how much, silver accumulates in the syrup. Interestingly, scientists tested silver back in the 1950s as a way to prevent taphole drying. At that time they concluded it wasn't particularly effective.

When you review the only real scientific data (from Steve Childs, Cornell) from controlled testing in 5/16" tubing systems on vacuum with the Zap-Bac over several years you get (in order of new to old from 2010-2012): 67%, 72%, and 13% (note that before the 2nd year Steve ran a brush through to expose more fresh silver on the surface, which is NOT typical). This averages a 51% improvement over 3 yrs. That is almost certain to be an overestimate of the Zap-Bac performance due to the 2nd Yr brushing. The probably true average (without brushing) is probably in the range of 40-45% improvement averaged over 3 Yrs.

For CV systems...same study, same time frame, Steve got: 114%, 101%, 20%, averaging 78%.

For the CV and Zap-Bac, they were on the same age of droplines. Steve's approach is well described in his work, with a good sample size.

For a new drop...same study, same time frame, Steve got: 151%, 125%, 25%, averaging 100%.

In general, with a new spout alone, we see an average of about a 31% improvement.

Those are all in the Cornell Tubing Notebook and other publications by Steve. They aren't hard to find.

So to summarize:

New Spout 31%, Zap-Bac 51% (true range likely 40-45%), CV 78%, New Drop/Spout 100%. The obvious conclusion is that the CV does significantly better than the Zap-Bac (~53% better in this case, or about 10.5 gal MORE SAP per tap per year if the Zap-Bac produces 20 gal/tap per year) over the 3 Yr lifespan of the Zap-Bac, and because the cost and labor are far lower than using a New Drop/New Spout, it turns out to be the approach that generally produces the highest net profit.

Those are Steve's results of scientific, replicated tests done over several years in a very controlled fashion. There are no vacuum differences, no tree size differences, no site differences, no dropline age differences, no differences other than sanitation treatment. They are the only apples-to-apples comparison, and the results are pretty clear and as unbiased as you're going to get (but again, the Zap-Bac results are, if anything, an overestimate). Although some people like to argue that I am biased so you can't believe the results, the UVM PMRC results are incredibly consistent with the Cornell results, except that we actually tend to find slightly LOWER increases than Steve observes for the CV and New Drop, which might be partially explained by our higher vacuum levels, pump management, and electric releaser, all of which tend to moderate the effectiveness of sanitation approaches.

So, I'm not saying that the Zap-Bac won't improve yields...it seems to (we found that silver would do that back in 2008...but the improvement didn't persist), and I agree that more research is clearly needed. But it cannot match the CV in terms of yield or net profit over a multi-year timeframe.

If anyone is going to use the Zap-Bac or CV system, don't bother in the first year of a new tubing system....the New Drop/New Spout will be enough. Put them on starting in Yr 2.

[Tigermaple]

Dr Tim, what type of vac are you using for you studies? and do you leave it on all season once it starts? This is very interesting.

[DrTimPerkins]

Since we retubed our operation in 2004, we've gone from using an Airblo Flood vane pump that was oil-cooled (lower vacuum, higher CFM), to Atlantic-Fluidics liquid ring oil-cooled pumps (good vacuum, lower CFM), to our current Busch rotary-claw pumps (high vacuum, high CFM). We've also gone from Bernard/Lapierre mechanical releasers to a CDL electric releaser. Our vacuum has gone up a bit from maybe 22-23" Hg in 2004 to 25-27" Hg (at our elevation, 27" is a really good day) the last several years. All our pumps are on a VFD and are on the entire season from when we finish tapping until we pull spouts, unless they need service (typically we try to service them when it is really cold). The only time they are off is if the power goes out. We also usually pair up pumps (often one for research and one for production) in the plumbing so that if one fails we can open a bridge and service both research and production while we fix the one that is down. Having a pump go down is rare since we will service them in the summer and then fire them up monthly for an hour or two until the season starts. Our pumps are set up in identical fashion, and are plug-n-play with all the other pumps we use, so we can shuffle things around easily if we need to. We also have an extensive Smartrek system in place, so we know immediately if there are problems, and jump right on them.

As we've transitioned through these systems, we've reduced the instances and severity of backflow events. In doing this, we find that sanitation, while still VERY important in terms of yield, is somewhat less critical. Sanitation effects are muted by any changes you make that reduce backflow (good vacuum, no leaks, electric releaser, dual-pipeline systems, pump always on). However....even if you do all those things it doesn't mean that you'll be able to achieve great results by only changing spouts each year. That is a myth, which unfortunately, is still perpetuated by some companies.

[Tigermaple]

Thanks Doc for your very informative response. We switched to a Airtech vane system this year and now I wish we did this years ago. But I am disappointed to learn even keeping 27" hg won't overcome the tree's natural vacuum enough to keep sap in the drop. I was hoping letting it run would evacuate more sap in the lines. Either way we seem to be producing more per but there is a long way to go.

[DrTimPerkins]

The tree can only generate a limited amount of vacuum. If you could constantly keep good vacuum on the lines, you wouldn't experience any appreciable backflow of sap. The problem occurs especially after a sap run of a day or more when the vacuum has been transferred to some degree into the tree tissues by the tubing system. If you experience a leak at that point, there will be bulk movement of sap back into the taphole from the tubing system until the vacuum pressure is equalized. The sap moves into the wood tissue (where it originated), but the sap movement transfers microbes from the tubing system into the taphole. It mostly collects along the periphery of the taphole, where it induces the tree wound response commonly known as "taphole drying."

[Sugar Bear]

very interesting thread and yes these questions do pertain to it.

I am a small time tapper of only 40 taps. I have not used the ZB tap but have used the CV clear tap against the standard clear tap and definitely seem to get better life and more sap out of them. No surprise their.

In question or should i say "competition" here we have two taps. One with silver in it or the ZB tap and the other with a check valve in it or the CV tap.
Lets say we had a third tap, one that was a plug with no hole inside of it out to a tubing line. It would not be a very productive tap for maple syrup making purposes. It would be hermetically and hydraulically sealed off with whatever material necessary to do and insure that. In essence it would be just a plug inside a normal or standard size tap hole for any other spout.

So my real question is when would the "plug tap" stop flowing sap ( inside the tap hole of course ) with respect to the normal taps. Is bacteria sealed out indefinitely? I doubt it but I defer to your answers. Would you be able to pull the plug out next tap season and put a normal tap in and get sap? I doubt it but defer to your answers again.

So then my other real question would be does a silver tap possibly work from both sides of the tap? The inside hole that sap is flowing through and the outside of the barrel of the tap that contacts the tree?

[letmgo]

When tapping today, I found that 90 percent of the zap-bac spouts in my sugar bush had moderate to severe squirrel damage. The squirrels never touched the drops, just the spouts, mostly on the head. These spouts were installed last season, and cleaned well. The several dozen black Leader spouts used in this sugarbush were never touched. What is there about these green spouts that is so attractive to squirrels?

[spud]

It’s possible that the silver inside attracts them. It also is possible that the color green attracts them. I have noticed in my years of sugaring that tree rats like to chew green tubing more then blue. I have never had any animal bother with my CV2 spouts.

Spud