Disaster Relief

[motowbrowne]

Anyone who files a schedule F should check out a PPP loan.

[n8hutch]

Here's my 2 cents (and I'm not trying to be political):

As a tax payer, it's hard for me to accept the idea that maple producers should get disaster relief aid in the form of free money. I understand it for farming of essential crops which are essential to our national health, nutrition, and security. That said, I think it is okay for governments to provide loans for businesses of all types that are impacted by disasters.

Ken

Yup Nailed it.
Plan For the Worst , Hope for the Best.
Sorry not trying to rustle any feathers.
Also if I owed Large sums of money and was concerned about paying the bills I would start out talking to my Lender/Debtor. I would not be looking for the government to assist me.

Also pertinent would be filling out the USDA crop reports annually so the big government will have accurate data for those that don't mind being helped out by their Government when they find themselves in this position .

[bill m]

I don't think less then ideal weather should qualify for disaster relief funds. The ice storm of 1998 in the north east hurt some maple producers real bad. That is the type of natural disaster that should qualify.

[eagle lake sugar]

Those of us in the far north never get the yields possible in Vermont, N.Y. etc., should we get government assistance every year? Any farming has good and bad years, you need to plan and account for that rather than applying for welfare in my opinion.

[DrTimPerkins]

Two things:

1. Much of the loss in yield, at least in Vermont and in some surrounding areas of the northeast, is due to low sap sugar content, which is most likely attributable to drought over the last 2-3 yrs. Drought is commonly something that results in disaster relief to agricultural communities. In fact, there was a drought disaster declaration from the USDA last fall (for the failure/yield reduction) in crops last summer/fall. I see the maple yield reduction as being in the same category and caused by the same set of conditions. We processed nearly the same amount of sap as normal, but had much lower yields, primarily attributable to the drought/low SSC.

2. Perhaps a little off topic, and it's not my intention to piss anyone off, but somebody touched on it so I will mention it here. I quite often hear people from many different areas say that the yields in Vermont are not achievable elsewhere. In some cases this might be true, but in many cases it definitely is NOT true. Many times we've been to places where we talk about high yield methods and hear "it isn't possible here", but a few yrs later somebody in that area is doing it. Now it might be that you can't get there with your trees for some reason, and maybe it is the case that your soil nutrition is poor or your tree genetics are poor, but in many cases it is either improper stand management or not STRICTLY following best management practices for high yield production. There just isn't any good way to cut corners and get excellent results. To go even further, it often comes down to not wanting to spend the money and time needed to get to the next level of production. That's OK....entirely your choice, but it isn't because it is not possible, just that people don't choose to go that route. Saying "high yield production can't be done here" is just an easy excuse....right up to the point when your neighbors start doing it.

[Michael Greer]

Here in Northern New York (St. Lawrence County) our sugar content was pretty much normal. The thing that was abnormal was that we had a bunch of really hot weather only three weeks into the season. Set up and clean up are the same every year, but we need more than 20 days to make this worth while. I fully recognize that dealing with Mother Nature is a tad unpredictable and I'm not suggesting that anyone compensate for that, but crop losses(sap in this case) for other crops happen all the time, and I think Maple producers are just as deserving as corn, soybean and wheat growers.

[Chris Johnson]

USDA crop insurance pays the difference between your actual yield and 50% of a normal crop. example: you made 33% of a normal crop so 50% -33% = 17% is what you will be paid for if and only if you had Crop Insurance prior to disaster. Crop insurance is available to all farmers and is free for the first 7 years for beginning farmers I believe. Cheap insurance!

[eagle lake sugar]

Two things:

1. Much of the loss in yield, at least in Vermont and in some surrounding areas of the northeast, is due to low sap sugar content, which is most likely attributable to drought over the last 2-3 yrs. Drought is commonly something that results in disaster relief to agricultural communities. In fact, there was a drought disaster declaration from the USDA last fall (for the failure/yield reduction) in crops last summer/fall. I see the maple yield reduction as being in the same category and caused by the same set of conditions. We processed nearly the same amount of sap as normal, but had much lower yields, primarily attributable to the drought/low SSC.

2. Perhaps a little off topic, and it's not my intention to piss anyone off, but somebody touched on it so I will mention it here. I quite often hear people from many different areas say that the yields in Vermont are not achievable elsewhere. In some cases this might be true, but in many cases it definitely is NOT true. Many times we've been to places where we talk about high yield methods and hear "it isn't possible here", but a few yrs later somebody in that area is doing it. Now it might be that you can't get there with your trees for some reason, and maybe it is the case that your soil nutrition is poor or your tree genetics are poor, but in many cases it is either improper stand management or not STRICTLY following best management practices for high yield production. There just isn't any good way to cut corners and get excellent results. To go even further, it often comes down to not wanting to spend the money and time needed to get to the next level of production. That's OK....entirely your choice, but it isn't because it is not possible, just that people don't choose to go that route. Saying "high yield production can't be done here" is just an easy excuse....right up to the point when your neighbors start doing it.

The northern tip of Maine is several hundred miles north of Vermont, unless you've studied here how can you make such a statement? I run 27" of vacuum, wet/dry systems, check valve spouts, 5 or less taps per lateral which are less than 100' long, etc. and a quart per tap would be a good year for me. From the first drop of sap until the tree buds pop is between 3 and 4 weeks total. Granted, I have a fair amount of smaller trees, 8-10" but nobody even close to me has ever gotten close to .5 per tap. There are huge operations in New Brunswick near here that have similar yields.

[One tap short]

The northern tip of Maine is several hundred miles north of Vermont, unless you've studied here how can you make such a statement? I run 27" of vacuum, wet/dry systems, check valve spouts, 5 or less taps per lateral which are less than 100' long, etc. and a quart per tap would be a good year for me. From the first drop of sap until the tree buds pop is between 3 and 4 weeks total. Granted, I have a fair amount of smaller trees, 8-10" but nobody even close to me has ever gotten close to .5 per tap. There are huge operations in New Brunswick near here that have similar yields.

There are a lot of variables to your sap yield. He makes that statement because he has seen it done time and time again(I am assuming).

For instance, many people say I am running 27" but what are you getting at the tap hole?
Mechanical or electric releaser?
Vacuum always on?
Main lines sized properly?
Drop/tap sanitation practices? (I don't believe in check valve taps myself)
Small trees are proven not to provide as much sap. That could be your issue. Some of the bigger operations you speak of may not be set up as well as you are either.

[eagle lake sugar]

There are a lot of variables to your sap yield. He makes that statement because he has seen it done time and time again(I am assuming).

For instance, many people say I am running 27" but what are you getting at the tap hole?
Mechanical or electric releaser?
Vacuum always on?
Main lines sized properly?
Drop/tap sanitation practices? (I don't believe in check valve taps myself)
Small trees are proven not to provide as much sap. That could be your issue. Some of the bigger operations you speak of may not be set up as well as you are either.

Electric releaser, 70 cfm vacuum pump on the original system for 3400 taps, vac always on, 1 1/4 over 1 1/4 and 1 1/4 over 1 wet dry's, 1" mainlines, etc. I worked as a tech for the phone company and did a couple month long tours in Vt. I can tell you the climate is night and day difference. My tubing setup is better than many of the ones I saw there. Where I am is like northern Minnesota, but with much more snow. One thing that really jumped out at me was the lack of undergrowth in the Vt. woods compared to here and how harsh the weather is here compared to there. There's a beautiful sugarbush about 60 miles south of me that is generational, there's no undergrowth, all large sugar maples that he actually mows in between. You should see this place! He runs high vac. like every other sugar maker in the area I know of and if I remember correctly, he told me his record year was around 1/3 gpt. The new bush I tapped this year is more south facing and is all larger sugar maples and it did outproduce my main bush, but I would guess I got maybe 15 gallons of sap per tree with a 40 cfm pump on only 1030 taps. It's much different here, trust me.