Carbon Neutral Maple Syrup

[PaulRenaud]

I do have one question. When you inventory your woods to establish sequestered carbon, how do you factor in non timbered acres. For example my property is 50% grassland and 50% timber. Doesn't grass land and total vegetation inventory count?

Apologies for the delay in replying, my first reply seems to have been eaten by the system. If this appears as a double reply, you will know why. Hopefully I'll say the same things as well the second time thru!

The scope of the current toolkit focuses only on the forested area of your maple syrup operation. Most maple syrup producers also own and operate a woodlot or farm in addition to being maple syrup producers. Both scenarios introduce the possibility of larger sequestration benefits but also introduce further complications. So instead of trying to solve world-hunger, we try to keep things simple by focusing on maple syrup.

In the case of a woodlot, your management and harvesting practices will have a significant effect on sequestration gain/loss. For example, tree marking practices, harvesting schedule, method of harvest, etc. Many forestry associations are providing increased guidance on this topic - the most advanced currently seems to be the Quebec forestry assoc. that is also offering a carbon credit program for woodlot owners willing to modify their practices.

In the case of a farm, crops sequester carbon as they grow but release it when you till the soil. Fertilization and watering practices can also create GHG emissions. No-till farming methods are being documented that can help reduce carbon footprint for many crop types. So the point of departure for researching this is your land use as a farmer.

In the case of a ranch, pasture sequesters carbon as it grows but livestock grazing on it can be a source of methane emissions. This varies by feedstock and the extent to which it is used in addition to pasture. As an example, Canadian beef cattle tend to be less GHG-intensive compared to American beef-cattle because they are predominantly grass-fed while most beef-cattle in the USA are corn-fed. You would need to do further research by livestock type to understand where the net-zero breakeven point is in the ratio of grassland to livestock feeding off it.

Maple syrup has a unique advantage over most food producers (that is shared only by orchards and honey-producers) in that we do not kill our source of food during the harvest of it. Net-zero agriculture is a broad topic that is just starting to get established. I am hoping that what we can accomplish as net-zero maple syrup producers will serve both as inspiration and as something that other agricultural producers can build on & improve as they too move towards decarbonizing our food.

[buckeye gold]

Thanks for the reply. As for my grassland it is permanent and not grazed or tilled. I mow it down a couple times a year and that's it. My forest mangement and harvest is on a rotating basis with select harvest of large trees about every 10 years. I have about a 30 % mature near harvest (DBH > 18") stand and the remaining 70% is regenrative growth varying in age from 5 -30 years. Damaged, and poor quality trees are culled as needed. I haven't run a forest transect in a while but I am guessing my mean Stem density index is around 100. The DBH ranges are 2-24", with 2-10" being the prdominate understory and 10-15" DBH being the next and finally the mature canopy holders of >20". So I am mostly fast growing timber and Our growing season is considerably longer than Canada's, so I think my offset is most likely pretty strong.

[PaulRenaud]

Thanks for the reply. As for my grassland it is permanent and not grazed or tilled. I mow it down a couple times a year and that's it. My forest mangement and harvest is on a rotating basis with select harvest of large trees about every 10 years. I have about a 30 % mature near harvest (DBH > 18") stand and the remaining 70% is regenrative growth varying in age from 5 -30 years. Damaged, and poor quality trees are culled as needed. I haven't run a forest transect in a while but I am guessing my mean Stem density index is around 100. The DBH ranges are 2-24", with 2-10" being the prdominate understory and 10-15" DBH being the next and finally the mature canopy holders of >20". So I am mostly fast growing timber and Our growing season is considerably longer than Canada's, so I think my offset is most likely pretty strong.

If you want to include your grassland, it may be possible to find the sequestration rate per hectare for the type of grass that is growing on your fields online, but I suspect that this will not be a meaningful amount (grass is smaller than trees) and you would need to include the fuel used for cutting it as a scope 1 emission (you can do this in the toolkit easily by entering in the number of litres of diesel or gasoline used for cutting the grass). On balance, unless you have alot of acreage, may not be worth adding it in.

As for forest, the polewood that is under 10" diameter does not contribute very much. You can see this in the sequestration calculator if you enter in some quantity of them.

The larger trees in the 10 - 24" range are more meaningful. You are correct that the longer growing season is also more helpful, however, this is already factored into the calculation via the resulting increase in diameter of trees year over year (i.e. redo your inventory by diameter more frequently). You should be able to use your stem density index to extrapolate to the number of trees per hectare. I can't quite recall the formula for doing that (let me know and I will consider adding it into the sequestration calculator). In any event, once you have a distribution of trees by size, you can use the existing calculator to figure out your sequestration. There is nothing stopping you from using those additional trees in your calculation as long as you do not harvest the ones counted in the same year that you are claiming a sequestration benefit from them.

Hope this helps.

[mapleack]

Interesting Paul, I was just pondering this very topic in the last couple weeks.

[buckeye gold]

Paul, It is apparent you have put a lot of time and effort into this and that is admirable, but in all honesty I have no concerns as to my Maple syrup production's impact on climate change/global warming. I believe in sound ecological forest management in maintaining a renewable resource and sustainable harvest. I most likely will never calculate my carbon sequester. Count me as skeptic to the whole carbon loading theory and if that makes me part of the problem, so be it. There are way too many conflicting opinions and I just can't find anyone with overwhelming evidence or proof on either side. Surely Maple syrup production is a very tiny contributor if it's a real issue. I can see where this does make a marketing angle, just like organic, but scientifically I think it is statistically insignificant. I think it is time for me to graciously bow out of the discussion. I can see you have invested a lot of time and work and what you have done is interesting and well done. Perhaps some day I will be convinced and if that day comes I will be glad to give you your due credit and apology. Signing out of this thread

[PaulRenaud]

I frequently encounter 3 myths regarding net-zero maple syrup that are worth commenting on.

1. The first myth comes in various forms based on whether climate change is real, or that anything we do matters. Since this is not the appropriate venue for debating that viewpoint, I will simply remark that various opinions on matters of science from people with insufficient credentials are not persuasive. To paraphrase a famous teenage Swedish girl, "you can argue with me but you cannot argue with physics"

2. The second myth is that maple syrup production using wood fired evaporators is inherently carbon neutral because wood is a renewable resource. While this is perhaps a true statement over the 200-year lifetime of a maple tree, it is not much help in a scenario where severe global warming becomes irreversible within a decade. We can and should do much better by operating on an annual cycle of carbon neutrality.

3. The third myth is more complex and is based on the concept of "additionality" when it comes to sequestration. This myth would have us believe that the sequestration of carbon by our maple forests do not matter because they are already doing their job regardless of our activities. Hence, only by creating additional sequestration will a net benefit be achieved. This line of thinking is inherently flawed because it ignores the root of the problem - our current inability as a society to operate in balance with nature. Yet if we bring our activities back into balance, the problem is solved. So by taking the step to bring our maple syrup production back within the budget of sequestration established by our trees, we are in fact bringing our activities back into balance and hence operating on a net-zero basis.

The only remaining question regarding "additionality" is whether net-benefits can be derived (e.g. via carbon credits) if we further improve to operate on a net-zero basis. This is where the additionality counter-argument falls on its face, because in that scenario we are creating additional sequestration headroom (previously occupied by us) that could be used by others so that in aggregate we both operate on a net-zero basis. I.E. we have in fact created additional sequestration headroom by improving the carbon footprint of our activities. So obviously the sequestration activity of our forests is a foundation for calculating net-zero footprint.

[4Walls]

I consider myself carbon neutral for my maple syrup production. I use waste vegetable oil as my main heat source. It took me 2 years to invent a way to burn clean and continuous. I've gone from a cord of wood a day to half a cord a season for 100 gallons of syrup. All my "fuel" I can eat and was destined to other recycling projects that are more carbon intensive on the environment. Except maybe heating and spraying raw waste veggie oil on the gravel roads to solidify them and reduce dust.
RO is a huge factor in reducing GHG but it only works for the "credits" if the electrical power source comes from a renewable source. All my power comes from a local hydro dam but that also has a initial and latent GHG effect.
Basically, Ive thought about this a lot and there is no way to make any type of sugar, that is concentrated and transportable, carbon neutral unless it is grown, produced and consumed locally, and sun dried. All we can do is strive to reduce the amount of old carbon and focus on using new carbon like the wood from our forests or waste veggie oil.
Every maple producer I have ever met is in tune with his/her forest and surrounding ecosystem. I would suggest that maple syrup is not the problem for global carbon pollution.
My .02c

[TapTapTap]

RO is a huge factor in reducing GHG but it only works for the "credits" if the electrical power source comes from a renewable source. All my power comes from a local hydro dam but that also has a initial and latent GHG effect.

Technically, you may not be able to assign the carbon credits that the power company owns related to their hydro generation. In a similar situation, I own a 15 kw solar array on my property. I benefit financially from the power I generate but not the carbon credits since the power is sold back to the power company and then they own those credits.

[PaulRenaud]

I consider myself carbon neutral for my maple syrup production. I use waste vegetable oil as my main heat source. It took me 2 years to invent a way to burn clean and continuous. I've gone from a cord of wood a day to half a cord a season for 100 gallons of syrup. All my "fuel" I can eat and was destined to other recycling projects that are more carbon intensive on the environment. Except maybe heating and spraying raw waste veggie oil on the gravel roads to solidify them and reduce dust.
RO is a huge factor in reducing GHG but it only works for the "credits" if the electrical power source comes from a renewable source. All my power comes from a local hydro dam but that also has a initial and latent GHG effect.
Basically, Ive thought about this a lot and there is no way to make any type of sugar, that is concentrated and transportable, carbon neutral unless it is grown, produced and consumed locally, and sun dried. All we can do is strive to reduce the amount of old carbon and focus on using new carbon like the wood from our forests or waste veggie oil.
Every maple producer I have ever met is in tune with his/her forest and surrounding ecosystem. I would suggest that maple syrup is not the problem for global carbon pollution.
My .02c

Regardless of the fuel type used for the evaporator, the international rules for climate accounting insist that you cannot be net-zero unless you have accounted for all Scope 1 (direct) Scope 2 (electrical indirect) and Scope 3 (indirect third party) emissions and then compare it to the carbon budget established by your sugarbush.

Using a renewable or recycled source of fuel does not cut it. Suggest you examine the emissions from burning veggie oil as well as your other fuel uses (e.g. transporting your syrup to market, etc). You can use the checklists for each Scope type in the calculator found on our website. It is possible that burning vegan oil is lower carbon emission than say wood (I haven't researched this myself), in which case your footprint may be low enough to fit into your carbon budget.

Claiming that maple syrup is not a major contributor to the global problem is not a substitute for taking action. Some might consider that line of thinking to be a "cop-out" or a even passive-aggressive form of climate change denial.

[PaulRenaud]

Technically, you may not be able to assign the carbon credits that the power company owns related to their hydro generation. In a similar situation, I own a 15 kw solar array on my property. I benefit financially from the power I generate but not the carbon credits since the power is sold back to the power company and then they own those credits.

The generation of power on your property is an offset only against the scope 2 emissions of your electric utility. Basically, you would use the net of Kwh generated vs consumed from the grid and prorate the result (ie. net divided by external source kwh) against the power used by pumps and RO / filters in your maple syrup operation. If you generate more than you use from external sources, you have zero scope 2 emissons.