+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: January thaw

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Granville, PA
    Posts
    376

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 220 maple View Post
    Let me first say that I agree with Dr. Abby at Proctor, it is not a good practice! I only bump taps if I go thru a heat and the taps stop or slow down to the point that I don’t get enough sap to fire the RO back up. Original depth is one an a quarter inches then when I bump I go another half inch. Some springs it is not required, we can have a 70 degree day here then followed by two or more weeks of perfect sap weather, another weather event we struggle with is tap holes freeze drying, something northerners nor Proctor or Cornell deals with! !
    I believe that we in central PA may be in more of the same situation that you are in as opposed to the northern states. It seems that all of the research is done in and relevant to the climate and elevation that just are not present here.

    Quote Originally Posted by 220 maple View Post
    I bumped a few holes this Spring mainly because I tapped two weeks later than the neighboring camp. I bumped to some try something new! I had in the past bumped with same size bit as the original hole! Biggest issue I had was tap hole integrity, when bumping if you wobble just a little bit you can have a vacuum leak! I bumped this year with a smaller bit so spile was tight again therefore on vacuum leak! I don’t recommend doing this, follow the science!
    Interesting, I have only ever bumped twice and had the same problem. Smaller bit would help. I had heard of retapping and originally thought that is what I was doing. Didn't know that I was bumping until Dr. Tim's explanation.

    Quote Originally Posted by 220 maple View Post
    I will try to get you the numbers from the neighboring camp that produced 200 gallons more, I’m pretty sure they had made around 400 gallons before bumping.
    Mark 220 Maple
    For not being a recommend practice, those results would be hard for me to ignore especially if the wound was less than 1/3 larger than a standard 1 3/4" deep tap hole.
    Last edited by minehart gap; 08-22-2021 at 07:39 PM.
    Matt,
    Minehart Gap Maple

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    UVM Proctor Maple Research Center, Underhill Ctr, VT
    Posts
    5,687

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 220 maple View Post
    Someone started the practice of bumping, I confess it is me, don’t have time to explain why.
    Various practices we collectively refer to as "taphole rejuvenation" have been done since people started chiseling or chopping gashes in maple trees to collect sap -- bumping is not new, but the term is. It is not unique to southern areas, but has been practiced in the north to a fair degree as well.

    The difference is that until recently, there has not been ANY amount of understanding of how these practices affected internal wounding and thus sustainability of the practice. People hear they can get 10-20%+ more syrup and it is the same taphole....let's do it. What was not understood is exactly what the consequences are of doing that. I fully understand that it is YOUR trees and you can do whatever you like, but it is equally important that producers recognize by doing something that (in the short-term) will result in additional syrup (and additional $), in the long-term could well reduce syrup yields, health of trees, and reduce the economic sustainability of syrup production from those stands. The growth of trees is not likely to be sufficient to sustain a wound double or triple the volume caused by such practices, thus we cannot recommend it. The argument for using paraformaldehyde in tapholes was basically the same....more sap, great. The effect was also very similar...much larger internal wounding.

    Essentially, all we are doing is providing some information and education about the consequences of decisions you make. If short-term economic gains are critical....that drives the decision. If long-term economics and sustainability are more important, make a different decision.

    For many producers, there is also the issue of how much it costs to go out and retap trees. Reaming, retapping, bumping takes time. Time is money.

    Lastly, there is no question that more research is needed in the southern portions of the maple production region, and it is good to see that starting to happen more and more. Those in the far northern regions say the same thing. However, tree physiology is not really that different from place to place. A sugar maple tree in Vermont is pretty much the same as a sugar maple tree in West Virginia or in New Brunswick. Taphole wounding, compartmentalization processes, and sapflow processes are not different. The weather/climate definitely is, which can affect some aspects of production (sap flow timing, taphole "drying", tree growth rates, etc.), but many things are very much the same.
    Dr. Tim Perkins
    UVM Proctor Maple Research Ctr
    http://www.uvm.edu/~pmrc
    https://mapleresearch.org
    Timothy.Perkins@uvm.edu

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    UVM Proctor Maple Research Center, Underhill Ctr, VT
    Posts
    5,687

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minehart gap View Post
    I believe that we in central PA may be in more of the same situation that you are in as opposed to the northern states. It seems that all of the research is done in and relevant to the climate and elevation that just are not present here.
    Interestingly, a good deal of maple research USED to be done by the U.S. Forest Service out of the "Philadelphia Lab." Wonder how people felt about that? It is certainly a valid point. Most people would prefer to have the studies done in a spot exactly like they have, but the research stations had to be set up somewhere. Wasn't my call (in 1946) where the University of Vermont decided to put a maple research station.

    For not being a recommend practice, those results would be hard for me to ignore especially if the wound was less than 1/3 larger than a standard 1 3/4" deep tap hole.
    Wounds were typically double OR MORE the volume with any of the rejuvenation practices. The paper is "in press" as we speak...and will be out in the next Maple Syrup Digest (so we're told), and yes, there will be pictures.
    Dr. Tim Perkins
    UVM Proctor Maple Research Ctr
    http://www.uvm.edu/~pmrc
    https://mapleresearch.org
    Timothy.Perkins@uvm.edu

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    UVM Proctor Maple Research Center, Underhill Ctr, VT
    Posts
    5,687

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sugar Bear View Post
    And of course the fact that the race for $$$ is more pronounced now the ever and an extra $12,000 is still a lot of money even to Bill Gates.
    Doubtful. $12,000 is 0.000009% of his net worth --- pocket change.
    Dr. Tim Perkins
    UVM Proctor Maple Research Ctr
    http://www.uvm.edu/~pmrc
    https://mapleresearch.org
    Timothy.Perkins@uvm.edu

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Lanark, ON
    Posts
    2,299

    Default

    Dr Tim - I am really looking forward to reading your article in the Maple Digest. They are always well intentioned, thorough and unbiased.

    Do research projects always work out? Absolutely not - that's part of the scientific method and we learn from the findings and come up with a new hypothesis.
    4,600 Taps on vacuum
    9,400 gallons storage
    3 tower CDL RO
    3.5'x14' Lapierre Force 5
    Twitter & Instagram: @ennismaple
    www.ennismaple.com

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Weston, CT
    Posts
    302

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrTimPerkins View Post
    Doubtful. $12,000 is 0.000009% of his net worth --- pocket change.
    While I am certain your tap hole bumping research will put things in perspective .000009% of someone's net worth does not.

    The following is a true story and keep in mind I am probably the poorest person ( although possibly the highest credit rating ) in Weston CT where average household income average is $250,000 a year so there is no bragging here just emphasis on the value of a hard earned dollar aboard anybody's boat.

    In the year 2001 ( we all remember that one like it was yesterday ) I had two large purchases that year. One was a brand new 2002 Model Year Subaru Outback for $23,000.00 and the other happened to be $12,000 worth of Microsoft Stock.

    Today the market value of that stock is $140,000. Not to mention about the MINIMUM $12,000 in cash dividends the stock has paid over that time.

    So $12,000 over what seems like yesterday, becomes $152,000 today ... a lot of money to anybody ... even Bill Gates ... then, now or twenty years from now.

    And the old 2002 Subaru came off the road on Jan 1, 2017 with 409 thousand miles on it. Parted it out for parts for the one I bought with 130 thousand miles on it and still pleasant on the road today with 260 thousand on it.

    I am anxious to see those pictures and read up so thanks for the hard and diligent work as it helps me keep things in perspective when the sugar comes calling.

    Its more about what we do with it then how much it is.
    If you think it's easy to make good money in maple syrup .... then your obviously good at stealing somebody's Maple Syrup.

    Favorite Tree: Sugar Maple
    Most Hated Animal: Sap Sucker
    Most Loved Animal: Devon Rex Cat
    Favorite Kingpin: Bruce Bascom
    40 Sugar Maple Taps ... 23 in CT and 17 in NY .... 29 on gravity tubing and 11 on 5G buckets ... 2019 Totals 508 gallons of sap, 7 boils, 11.4 gallons of syrup.
    1 Girlfriend that gives away all my syrup to her friends.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Granville, PA
    Posts
    376

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrTimPerkins View Post
    Interestingly, a good deal of maple research USED to be done by the U.S. Forest Service out of the "Philadelphia Lab." Wonder how people felt about that? It is certainly a valid point. Most people would prefer to have the studies done in a spot exactly like they have, but the research stations had to be set up somewhere. Wasn't my call (in 1946) where the University of Vermont decided to put a maple research station.



    Wounds were typically double OR MORE the volume with any of the rejuvenation practices. The paper is "in press" as we speak...and will be out in the next Maple Syrup Digest (so we're told), and yes, there will be pictures.
    I believe that both Proctor and Cornell are appropriately located, i just do not think that all of the research that is done in a particular climate is able to be considered absolute. You referenced in a separate post that there is research being done in the southern producing states, please elaborate more on this if you would.

    Oh, and some of us like your research papers just the way you do them. Pictures do speak a thousand words but most times you just can't say what you have learned without words.
    Matt,
    Minehart Gap Maple

  8. #18
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    UVM Proctor Maple Research Center, Underhill Ctr, VT
    Posts
    5,687

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sugar Bear View Post
    So $12,000 over what seems like yesterday, becomes $152,000 today ... a lot of money to anybody ... even Bill Gates ... then, now or twenty years from now.
    This is definitely a side topic, so everyone should feel free to ignore it if you wish, but since you brought it up...

    That's great results....no doubt the stock market has been on a tear for a while. The strange thing....$152k is still just a small amount of wealth for Bill Gates and a good number of others. It's about 0.00004% of his net worth. That amount of wealth is absolutely incredible and difficult to understand. There's a good video that attempts to portray it at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W56g5KdqZoo Keep in mind video was done a few years back. At that time Jeff Bezos net worth was $120 BILLION, it is now around $186 BILLION, and this is AFTER he gave his wife $38 BILLION in their divorce settlement.

    Heard an interesting podcast on this topic a few months ago. People at this level can almost completely avoid paying taxes. Rather than draw a salary, their net worth is so high that they take massive loans from banks instead (the banks have an arrangement where they'll get paid the principal when they die). They do pay interest, but it is (partially) tax deductible or a business expense, so it offsets any taxes they do pay. So they have little or no real "income" according to the IRS, but high expenses, thus little or no taxes despite getting resources of millions or billions to spend. Quite the scheme. Takes a bunch of lawyers and bankers to make the arrangements, but saves them huge amounts in tax.
    Dr. Tim Perkins
    UVM Proctor Maple Research Ctr
    http://www.uvm.edu/~pmrc
    https://mapleresearch.org
    Timothy.Perkins@uvm.edu

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    UVM Proctor Maple Research Center, Underhill Ctr, VT
    Posts
    5,687

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minehart gap View Post
    I believe that both Proctor and Cornell are appropriately located, i just do not think that all of the research that is done in a particular climate is able to be considered absolute.
    No, we don't see it that way at all. Any work results in certain "inferences" you can draw, which to some degree limit the applicability of the results to certain conditions. That said, it is likely or at least quite possible that the results could be the same elsewhere, but we can't be entirely certain unless other work is done that extends the inference to those conditions. So our work at UVM PMRC probably holds true for northern Vermont, upstate NY, and surrounding areas, but we're less certain about them beyond that. Again...could well be that they apply elsewhere, but you can't be certain. The results are likely to hold up better for some things, and less sure for others. That's just a limitation of science.

    An example of that would be if a scientist were in the tropics and observed that the sky was blue. He/she couldn't be absolutely certain that the sky was also blue in the temperate regions or the arctic without going there and observing it. However atmospheric physics are similar in both places, but with some differences in conditions. So it is LIKELY that they sky is blue in temperate regions and the arctic as well, but you can't be absolutely certain.

    You referenced in a separate post that there is research being done in the southern producing states, please elaborate more on this if you would.
    There is some work (both research and education) being done in CT, NJ, VA, WV, IO, OH and then further out west in OR and WA https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/grants/acer/awards Much of it just started in the past few years, and the topics vary depending upon who is doing the work and where. I expect you'll hear more about these as time goes on, but right now, much of those efforts are just ramping up.

    Oh, and some of us like your research papers just the way you do them. Pictures do speak a thousand words but most times you just can't say what you have learned without words.
    There generally is a mix of both words and figures (graphs/tables/photos). We try to determine how best to explain the study and portray the results so the message is clear.
    Last edited by DrTimPerkins; 08-24-2021 at 07:49 AM.
    Dr. Tim Perkins
    UVM Proctor Maple Research Ctr
    http://www.uvm.edu/~pmrc
    https://mapleresearch.org
    Timothy.Perkins@uvm.edu

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    UVM Proctor Maple Research Center, Underhill Ctr, VT
    Posts
    5,687

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ennismaple View Post
    Do research projects always work out? Absolutely not - that's part of the scientific method and we learn from the findings and come up with a new hypothesis.
    You are quite right. Lots of projects don't work out, but we always learn something. Science rarely comes up with a definitive answer right away. Generally it starts with something fairly broad, then narrows in on it. Science also rarely "proves" anything. Instead, it tries to disprove that other alternatives are viable or that they are (statistically) unlikely, so the one explanation left standing is (most likely) the correct one.
    Dr. Tim Perkins
    UVM Proctor Maple Research Ctr
    http://www.uvm.edu/~pmrc
    https://mapleresearch.org
    Timothy.Perkins@uvm.edu

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts