Carbon Neutral Maple Syrup

[TapTapTap]

I think you are overlooking the fact that each year you accelerate emissions by another 7 years. Your timeline shows the impact of only one year.

Can you be more specific?

I am adding each current year at 100% and reducing for each previous year I banked with the 7-year return. Maybe I didn't do it right but that was my thinking. So just looking at year 3:

+100% from year 3
-1/7 of year 1
-1/7 of year 2
Net for year 3 is 71.4%.

If you run it out through 7 years then your at 0% for the 8th.

Ken

[PaulRenaud]

I think the correct lens is to look at emissions in each year since that is what is driving climate change. Note that the tree decay rate is at least 7 years (and species specific), so let's just use 10 for the purposes of illustration and making the math easier to follow.

Suppose you emit 1000 (pick your units, say kg) CO2e/yr, over a 10-year period you would have emitted 10,000 kg CO2e/yr by burning wood.

Meanwhile, (ignoring the fact that even decaying trees don't totally release all their stored carbon), the trees burned in the first year would have decomposed 10%, i.e. 100 kg CO2e/yr. In the second year, while you burned another 1000 kg, in the alternative scenario the emissions from the first year of decay would be another 100 g plus the first installment of 100 g from the wood being consumed in the second year. In the 3rd year there are 3 contributions of 100, etc up to the 10th year when there are 10x100 or 1000 kg (it makes a triangle as in a depreciation schedule in finance).

So only in the 10th year does natural decomposition reach the same level as what you burned every year. If you add up the total emissions in the triangle you would have 1/2 x 10 x 1000 or 5,000 kg CO2e/yr over the same time period.

Cheers, Paul

[PaulRenaud]

While you only mentioned this as an aside to bolster your argument, it is kind of a pet peeve of mine. You need to keep in mind that you're getting a whopping dose of sugar along with those antioxidants, vitamins and minerals. Blueberries, cranberries and other plant-based foods contain far more antioxidants than maple syrup, with WAY less sugar.

While it's true that indigenous peoples of North America consumed a good bit of maple sugar in the spring, it was mainly for subsistence. Maple is what was available at that time of year, not to "rebuild their bodies." Maple sugar, like all other sugars, are mostly empty calories. You'd need to consume over a quart of syrup DAILY to get the needed dose of many minerals (zinc, iron, potassium, calcium, etc.) that maple is fairly high in.

Don't get me wrong...I prefer maple syrup to many other types of sugar, but I always cringe a little when people talk about health effects of maple. It is mostly advertising "spin" in my way of thinking. Yes, in some ways maple syrup is marginally better than other sugars, but it is still MOSTLY sugar. The only reason it is better is that it is far less refined, so the small amount of "good" stuff has not been stripped out. The argument is sort of like would you rather get hit by a car driving 60 mph or a truck driving 80 mph. Neither are particularly healthy except in comparison.

Somehow Tim Perkins quote and comment on my post was attributed to me by accident. Although confusing, I'd like to address a couple of the points he makes.

1. Agree that maple syrup is mostly sugar, sucrose to be specific. That is how we make it. However it has a lower glycemic index (54) than cane sugar (60) or honey (58). Not saying that diabetics should down this nectar but of the natural sweeteners, it's hard to beat it.

2. Disagree on the anti-oxidants level. The US National Institute of Health published a peer-reviewed paper by researchers at the Univ Oslo who measured the anti-ox levels of 3100 foods worldwide, yet somehow missed maple syrup. Ref:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2841576/ The highest category of food that they measured were indeed plant based foods, specifically herbal and traditional medicines, the max of which had just under 2800 micro-mols of anti-ox per 100 g of food. In fact there was only one food even in this ballpark, Sangre de grado, found in Peru.

Meanwhile an intrepid researcher in Japan published another peer-reviewed paper that studied the anti-ox level of maple syrup as it varies by the grade of syrup. Ref: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article...3/21_495/_html. The lowest grade of maple syrup he tested ("extralight" which isn't even a grade in Canada) was 500 mmol/100g and the highest grade Dark, ranged from 1500 - 2000 mmol/100g. His point was that anti-ox levels vary by grade.

3. Also disagree on the traditional usage by native peoples. The good folk at the 4 Winds Medicine Council of Anishinabe and Mohawk medicine people confirm the traditional practice of drinking sweetwater straight from the tree was for the health benefits. They also drank butternut sap for the same reasons. Maple Syrup was used to hide the taste of meat that had spoiled, in the same way that spices were used for the same purpose in Europe for centuries. In neither case was it traditionally used as a food substitute.

4. As for minerals, agree that Potassium is the most significant mineral found in maple syrup (approx 2g per kg syrup), so while it contributes to achieving the daily recommended level of approx 3 g, realistically no-one is about to down more than 2L of syrup a day to get there! It is worth observing that a recent study by the Acer Institute in Quebec published in vol 131 of Food Control this year found that the level of potassium in maple syrup falls off significantly when the syrup is made from sap concentrated from 20 Brix or higher. So be aware of this when reviewing studies of potassium levels in maple syrup. The level of polyphenols also falls as higher RO concentrates are used as input to the boiling process.

[DrTimPerkins]

Somehow Tim Perkins quote and comment on my post was attributed to me by accident. Although confusing, I'd like to address a couple of the points he makes.

Sorry, looking back it appears that I "edited" your post instead of replying to it. As a moderator I can do that (I don't exercise that type of moderator duties...except this one time in error). My apologies for that.

Again, I disagree to a large degree with your comments and with your interpretations of the studies you cite. Since, as I stated earlier, this diversion isn't pertinent to the thread, I'll let it go now, but happy to continue this should it arise again in another post.

[DrTimPerkins]

I think the correct lens is to look at emissions in each year since that is what is driving climate change. Note that the tree decay rate is at least 7 years (and species specific), so let's just use 10 for the purposes of illustration and making the math easier to follow.

Decay rate (or more correctly, carbon release rate) is going to vary considerably depending upon whether the wood is burned, used for lumber purposes (in which case it may not decay for 50-150 yrs or more), allowed to decay in the forest. The rate of decay even in the case of natural forest decay will vary depending upon whether it is leaves, twigs/branches, stems, or roots. Ten years is not nearly enough for a large stem, but is probably way too long for fine roots, leaves, and twigs.

[TapTapTap]

I think the correct lens is to look at emissions in each year since that is what is driving climate change. Note that the tree decay rate is at least 7 years (and species specific), so let's just use 10 for the purposes of illustration and making the math easier to follow.

Suppose you emit 1000 (pick your units, say kg) CO2e/yr, over a 10-year period you would have emitted 10,000 kg CO2e/yr by burning wood.

Meanwhile, (ignoring the fact that even decaying trees don't totally release all their stored carbon), the trees burned in the first year would have decomposed 10%, i.e. 100 kg CO2e/yr. In the second year, while you burned another 1000 kg, in the alternative scenario the emissions from the first year of decay would be another 100 g plus the first installment of 100 g from the wood being consumed in the second year. In the 3rd year there are 3 contributions of 100, etc up to the 10th year when there are 10x100 or 1000 kg (it makes a triangle as in a depreciation schedule in finance).

So only in the 10th year does natural decomposition reach the same level as what you burned every year. If you add up the total emissions in the triangle you would have 1/2 x 10 x 1000 or 5,000 kg CO2e/yr over the same time period.

Cheers, Paul

Paul,
I get and agree that 7 years might not be the correct decay rate.
Please clarify whether you agree or disagree with my methodology, and if not, then why.

thx

Ken

[PaulRenaud]

Paul,
I get and agree that 7 years might not be the correct decay rate.
Please clarify whether you agree or disagree with my methodology, and if not, then why.

thx

Ken

Arg, the forum timed out my session as I was uploading my reply and seems to have lost it, so here is my second attempt (the joy of satellite Internet).

No, I do not agree. The only reliable way to know that you are net zero is to balance your actual emissions annually against the actual sequestration of your existing sugarbush. You can apply recognized climate accounting practices, measure it, report on it, and even audit it.

The alternative approach of adding up hypothetical "credits" that exist in only an alternative universe where the same tree had not been used for fuel but might have decayed is based solely on dubious assumption and speculation. You must assume that the tree would have decayed over a set period (ignoring variance due to climate, species, local conditions, etc.), and ignore the fact that not all of a tree's carbon is released when it decays (a significant amount goes back into the soil, also depending on climate, species, local conditions, etc.). You must also assume that the natural process of carbon uptake is not diminished due to climate change (even though we know it is), disease, development, invasive species, disasters, etc. In the case of reclaimed lumber, you must also overlook the fact that that tree's natural sequestration cycle was cut short (pun intended) by others and pretend that it doesn't matter. And, as I demonstrated in my simple example, you always accelerate carbon emissions during the critical time window the world is now in when we need to reduce and balance them. Relying on an uncertain premise that nature will catch up to these emissions is not persuasive.

So I recommend you (we) do both. Use a more climate friendly fuel (renewable) than fossil fuels and balance your emissions annually. If every maple tap in Canada were (provably) net-zero we would sequester 1 Billion kg of CO2e per year. That is equivalent to emissions from 320,000 Canadian households (i.e. a mid-sized city the size of Winnipeg or Quebec City).

[TapTapTap]

Arg, the forum timed out my session as I was uploading my reply and seems to have lost it, so here is my second attempt (the joy of satellite Internet).

No, I do not agree. The only reliable way to know that you are net zero is to balance your actual emissions annually against the actual sequestration of your existing sugarbush. You can apply recognized climate accounting practices, measure it, report on it, and even audit it.

I don't see that you'd be assigning an "actual sequestration" either. And, since you are asserting implied assumptions on the sequestration of dead trees counted in your forest inventory then maybe the same assumptions can be applied to the emissions side so long as you don't double count the benefit. However, I agree it is conservative to ignore any emissions credit back for consumed dead trees and makes sense for simplifying the implied assumptions on all sides of the equation.

[DrTimPerkins]

There are definitely going to be some people who will be enthusiastic about this because of the climate change issue. Some may also be resistant for the same reason. While it isn't a subject area I'm well versed in and I'm sure there is always some tweaking that can be done around the edges of this model, this seems like a good approach overall. Regardless of how you feel about it, it seems like this could be a useful marketing strategy, sort of like organic syrup or bird-friendly maple.

Many people like to feel they're doing something good for the environment, and if eating maple syrup can also make them feel they're helping...great. There is no doubt that trees sequester carbon, and that maple production can be a sustainable way to maintain forests in a productive capacity while also yielding a crop. Way better than cutting them down and building houses. Seems like a win-win situation for the maple industry in any case. More research and far more discussion of this topic is needed.

[TapTapTap]

Way better than cutting them down and building houses. Seems like a win-win situation for the maple industry in any case. More research and far more discussion of this topic is needed.

I'll say that I'm supportive. But I'm also skeptical because my awareness is very limited and it's obviously an extremely complex and specific to each producers operations and their forest.

In response to your comment on better than cutting them down for building - it seems a lot more complicated and is perhaps a better option than concrete construction. Concrete accounts for 8% of the world carbon emissions. So my point is that it makes sense to continue to promote the forestry industry for building products. As you indicated in a previous post, you could expect a long sequestration for these products. So the irony could be that cutting more forest is a better method.

There'll be a lot more discussion for some time to come.

Ken