Showing 1 – 10 of 16 matching resources
During the 2015 maple sap season the Cornell Maple Program conducted a small trial, testing sap yield from 5/16″ tubing vs. 3/16″ tubing. This trial was not conducted at the Arnot Research forest but with a small maple operation cooperator. The tubing system consisted of six lateral lines, three 5/16″ and three 3/16″ alternating between the two treatments across the hillside.
During the 2019 maple season the Cornell Maple Program conducted replicated trials on 5/16Ó and 3/16Ó tubing looking at a variety of tubing options for taphole sanitation and tapping. This report will focus on the 5/16Ó results.
In a normal sap flow event, trees exude sap during the above freezing period and replenish that lost water by ÒsuckingÓ it up from the roots during the below freezing period. If on a tubing system, during this negative pressure period they tend to draw sap back into the tree from the dropline. Sap, once it enters the droplines, is quickly contaminated with microbes. When they are drawn back into the tree, tap hole closure is initiated. The problem is compounded in 3/16- inch tubing because, unlike 5/16-inch tubing, the smaller diameter collection tube remains full of sap. A Cornell study found that up to 12 feet of sap in a 3/16-inch tube can be drawn back into the tree during this recharge time. CV spouts are one proven method of limiting this drawback with 5/16 inch tubing. The question was: will they also be effective with 3/16-inch tubing that is full of sap?
There has been a lot of interest in 3/16″ tubing over the past several years. This article describes research results and possible future directions.
Should I use 3/16″ or 5/16″ tubing? One of the first questions maple producers face when deciding to tube (or retube) a sugarbush is whether to use 3/16″ or 5/16″ tubing. This article explains some of the general rules that can be helpful in narrowing down the pros and cons of each approach.
Details a study of 3/16″ tubing conducted in West Virginia.
Using 3/16″ tubing can create non-mechanical vacuum that can increase sap yield.
Although rapidly adopted by many maple producers, due to the relatively short time period in which it has been in widespread use, there is far less understanding of sanitation in 3/16Ó tubing systems. To address this knowledge deficit, we conducted a multi-year study at the UVM Proctor Maple Research Center to examine sanitation related losses in 3/16Ó tubing systems to determine which approach(es) might best mitigate sap losses due to sanitation.
For Illinois farmers, the maple resource is poised to be tapped given that 1.8 of the total 4.3 million acres of Illinois woodlands exists on farms. Industry standards suggest that a properly managed maple tree resource producing an average sap sugar concentration of 2 percent and an average volume per tap per season of 10 gallons of sap is necessary for a commercial maple syrup venture to succeed.
Ten years ago, 3/16” diameter tubing was introduced to the marketplace as an alternative tubing to 5/16” diameter tubing. However, recent research shows that sap production in 3/16” tubing drops off as soon as the second year after installation due to microbial growth. A replacement for 3/16” diameter tubing in gravity systems could be 1/4” tubing. With almost twice the aperture of 3/16” tubing (0.049 sq inches compared to 0.0275 sq inches), 1/4″ inch tubing is less likely to plug from microbes yet is still able to create a full column of sap for gravity vacuum. Quarter-inch tubing is currently not available for maple producers but can be procured from other industries and, with modifications, will work for maple production.