IN F O R M A T IO N T O USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation o f techniques is provided to markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. help you understand 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from die document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints o f "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: received. Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 74-19,806 GUNTER, John Edward, 1940MAPLE SAP PRODUCTION ECONOMICS IN MICHIGAN. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1974 Agriculture, forestry § wildlife U n iv e rs ity M icro film s, A XEROX C om pany , A n n A rbo r, M ic h ig a n MAPLE SAP PRODUCTION ECONOMICS IN MICHIGAN By John E. Gunter A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Forestry 1974 ABSTRACT MAPLE SAP PRODUCTION ECONOMICS IN MICHIGAN By John E. Gunter Five aspects of the maple syrup industry in Michigan were studied: (1) the characteristics of Michigan's maple syrup producers, (2) the relative cost advantages and pro­ fitability of the two basic types of sap collection system (buckets and vacuum pumped plastic tubing networks), the type, amount, cost, and utilization of equipment re­ quired for various sizes of operations, of labor, (3) (4) the utilization time and duration of peak labor periods, and labor input for specific tasks involved in maple sap collection operations, and (5) the size of operation that is most profitable. Data were gathered by mailing a questionnaire in 1972 to all maple syrup producers in the State of Michigan for which a mailing address could be obtained, and by selectively recruiting cooperators over the 500 to 3,000taphole range, to keep time and cost records for their maple sap production operations for the 1972 and 197 3 seasons. John E. Gunter Analytical techniques employed on the data included T-tests, linear correlation analysis# multiple regression analysis# analysis of covariance# break-even analysis# and marginal analysis. The survey findings indicated that the majority (56 percent) of the Michigan maple syrup producers list some kind of agricultural endeavor as their principal occupation. A significant number producers were retired# of an advanced age. (10 percent) of the and a disproportionate number were The majority (58 percent) of the producers had operations of less than 1#000 tapholes in 19 72. The average producer had been making syrup at the same location for 2 3 years. Ten and 7 percent of the producers# respectively— primarily those with the larger operations— bought sap and syrup from other producers in 1972. It was also the larger producers who planned to increase their production of sap and syrup between 1972 and 1977. Although a minority (45 percent) or producers had tried plastic tubing before 1972# those who had used it believed its advantages outweighed the disadvantages. Also# one-fourth of the producers reported plans to shift to more tubing and less buckets. While most syrup is sold at the retail level# a majority (51 percent) of Michigan producers sell at least part of their syrup on the wholesale market. Eighty-nine John E. Gunter percent of the producers "usually" or "almost always" received a "fair" price for their syrup. Obtaining an adequate labor supply at wage rates they can afford was a problem for most of the State's maple producers. Yet 9 5 percent of the producers reported they did not have to guarantee their seasonal workers a specific number of hours on the job to have an available labor force. Some producers suggested more extensive use of tubing in place of buckets as a possible solution to the "labor problem." In the cost and returns portion of the study, equations to predict total equipment investment from the number of tapholes for both bucket and tubing operations were generated via least squares computational procedures. These equations are presented as are prediction equations for total cost of sap production by size of operation for both collection systems. Differences in equipment investment between bucket and tubing collection systems were significant, with bucket systems requiring the larger expenditures. Bucket systems also required an average of 5 minutes per taphole more labor input than tubing. Furthermore, the bulk of the labor inputs occurred during the sap collection phase of the production process for bucket operations, whereas tubing operations required the most labor during the initial set-up of the system. Because of the heavy reliance on John E. Gunter labor with the bucket system, labor costs were higher for this method than for tubing operations of the same size. Since the two largest cost items, annual equipment cost and labor cost, were higher for bucket operations, total cost was also higher for buckets. This difference was found to be statistically significant from tubing total cost values. Minimum cost per taphole (minimum average total cost) was found to vary from $.96 to $1.07 per taphole for bucket operations depending on whether or not wor km e n1s compensation was included. These minimum cost values were $.70 and $.82 for tubing operations, or 25 to 26 cents lower than bucket operations. Break-even and marginal analyses for a range of sap yields, sugar concentrations and associated prices, were used to define the minimum number of tapholes needed to break even and the number required to maximize net returns. Naturally, values, the higher the yield and sugar concentration the lower the break-even size and the larger the marginal size regardless of collection system employed. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS For providing the financial support so necessary to this research effort, the author extends sincere appre­ ciation to the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, United States Forest Service, and to the Department of Forestry, Michigan State University. The author is grateful to the following for the assistance rendered during the course of the study: to Dr. Melvin R. Koelling for project direction and consider­ able expenditures of time and effort; to Dr. Victor J. Rudolph, his major professor, for time, counsel, advice, and suggestions; to Dr. Robert S. Manthy for manuscript review and constructive suggestions; and to Dr. Wayne L. Myers for invaluable assistance in computer programming and statistical methods. Deserving special recognition are those members of Michigan’s maple syrup industry whose willingness to co­ operate made the study possible. Above all, the author is grateful for the patience, endurance, understanding, and encouragement of his wife, Bonnie. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ........................................... 1 ................................. 4 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Producer Surveys ..................................... Maple Sap Production Techniques .................... Costs of Maple Sap Production....................... 4 6 11 METHODS OF STUDY........................................ 15 Collection of D a t a ................................. Analysis of D a t a ..................................... 15 21 Maple Producer Survey.............................. Sap Y i e l d s ........................................ Costs and Returns in Maple Sap Production . . . 21 21 24 Equipment Investment ......................... . Annual Equipment Costs........................... Equipment Operation and Maintenance Costs . Material Expenses .............................. Labor Costs and Labor Utilization ............. Maple Stand C o s t ................................. Management C osts................................. Total, Average Total, and Marginal Costs and Returns..................................... RESULTS AND DISCUSSION................................. 24 26 28 29 30 34 34 36 41 Characteristics of Michigan Maple Syrup Producers . 41 Occupation and Years in Production ............. Operation S i z e ..................................... Limiting Factors in Sap and Syrup Production . . Production Trends ................................. The Marketing of Maple S y r u p .................... Labor and Maple Sap Production.................... 41 44 47 50 63 69 iii Page Costs and Returns for Maple Sap Production in M i c h i g a n ........................................... 73 Predicting the Total Investment in Sap Production Equipment Labor Input and Its C o s t .......................... Bucket and Tubing Annual Costs.................... Total, Average Total, and Marginal Costs . . . Profitability of Maple Sap Production . . . . 73 75 78 82 89 SUMMARY......................................................100 Producer Survey .................................... Costs and Returns 101 10 3 IMPLICATIONS ........................................... 107 LITERATURE CITED............................................ 110 General References ................................. 114 APPENDICES Appendix A. Maple Syrup Producer Survey Questionnaire Form .......................... 115 B. Cooperators Using Bucket Collection System . . 121 C. Cooperators Using Tubing Collection System . . 12 2 D. General Information F o r m ............................123 E. Labor Information Form. F. Daily Time and Power Record Forms— Bucket S y s t e m ............................................128 G. Instructions for Daily Time and Power Record— Bucket System ................................. ........................ 124 132 H. Daily Time and Power Record Forms— Tubing S y s t e m ............................................ 135 I. Instructions for Daily Time and Power Record— Tubing System ................................. 139 Page J. Maple Sap Equipment Inventory Form— Bucket S y s t e m ......................................... 141 Maple Sap Equipment Inventory Form— Tubing S y s t e m ......................................... 143 L. Annual Operating Expenses Record Form 148 M. Standard Equipment List— Bucket Systems. . . 149 N. Standard Equipment List— Tubing Systems. . . 150 O. Computation of Operation and Maintenance Costs— Powered Equipment ..................... 152 ............... 155 K. . . . P. Material Expenses— Annual Basis Q. Cost of Maple Sap Production by Operation v . . 156 LIST OF TABLES Operation and Maintenance Costs— Powered .............................. Equipment . 29 Principal Occupation of Maple Syrup Producers in Michigan, 1972 .......................... 42 Distribution of Tapholes and Producers by Size of Operation, 1972 .......................... 45 Tapholes on Owned and Non-Owned Properties, 1972........................................... 46 Factors That Limited the Number of Tapholes Per Operation in 1972 ....................... 49 Purchase and Sale of Sap, and Purchase of Syrup by Maple Producers, 1972 ............. 51 Producer Plans Concerning Maple Sap Production for 1973-1977................................. 55 Producer Plans Concerning Maple Syrup Production for 1973-1977 .................... 58 Distribution of Tapholes by Sap Collection System, 1972 ................................. 60 Percentage of Maple Producers Who Have Tried Tubing by Size of Operation, 1972 . 61 Do the Advantages of Plastic Tubing Outweigh the Disadvantages? ................ . 61 Could Tubing Be Profitably Employed in Your Operation?.................................... 62 vi Table 13. 14. Page Any Plans to Change the Relative Proportion of Buckets to Tubing in the Next Five Years? . . 64 Retail vs. Wholesale Marketing of Maple Syrup by Michigan Producers, 1972.................... 65 15. The Average Price Received Per Gallon of Syrup in 1972 and a "Fair P r ic e ” ................. 67 16. Source of Maple Sap Production Labor Force by Collection System, 1972 ........................ 70 Average Number of Seasonal Workers by Collection System and Size of Operation, 1972 70 17. 18. Average Annual Labor Time for Sap Production by A c t i v i t y ............................................ 76 19. Average Total Annual Cost Per Taphole by Collection System .............................. 80 20. Cost Relationships in Doll ar s........................ 90 21. Break-even Size, Marginal Size, and Net Return by Sap Yields and Sugar Content, Bucket O p e r a t i o n s ......................................... 96 22. Break-even Size, Marginal Size, and Net Return by Sap Yields and Sugar Content, Tubing O p e r a t i o n s ......................................... 97 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Page Location of Cooperating Bucket and Tubing Operations, 1973 .............................. 18 2. Total Cost Curves for Bucket Operations . . . 84 3. Total Cost Curves for Tubing Operations . . . 85 4. Average Total Cost and Marginal Cost Curves for Bucket Operations ........................ 87 Average Total Cost and Marginal Cost Curves for Tubing Operations ........................ 88 Cost and Revenue Relationships, Tubing Operations (Without Workmen's Compensation) 92 5. 6. viii . INTRODUCTION The production of maple syrup and other maple products has declined in Michigan and the other maple pro­ ducing states since the mid to late 1800s when production was at a peak. Today, the industry continues to decline, in spite of a large, literally untapped, physical sugar maple resource, the highest retail prices on record, and a demand which far exceeds the available supply. Unfortu­ nately, this steady, general decline will probably not be reversed if the traditional, highly inefficient, very labor intensive sap and syrup production methods and technology are not improved upon. There is a problem, also, in that what is thought by experts to be improved technology is not always adopted by the maple producers themselves, because the latter remain unconvinced that the benefits to be gained will exceed the costs incurred. This appears to be the case in the very slow general acceptance of plastic tubing networks as a viable alternative to the traditional bucket collection system, despite the fact that tubing has been available for nearly 2 0 years. Among others, it may very well be that 1 2 one of the reasons producers do not adopt tubing systems more readily is that the information available to them concerning the relative labor and cost efficiencies of the two systems is sketchy. Some general beliefs about the two systems do exist, however. The conventional wisdom has it that tubing systems are the more efficient in terms of labor utilization. But is also felt that tubing systems have a higher initial cost, and it is questioned if this alledgedly higher cost is justified by the additional benefits to be expected in increased yield, speed, and ease of collection. The importance of minimizing sap production costs is emphasized by Morrow (1968), who found that 60 percent of labor costs and 40 percent of total costs (marketing included) were attributable to the production of maple sap. Any procedure for reducing sap production costs would have a significant effect on lowering overall costs and would, consequently, add to the total profit picture. In view of the above, this present research endeavor focused on determining which of the two systems is the more cost efficient in terms of labor usage and equipment utilization, and, conversely, which of the two is more profitable. Also, as very little is known about the characteristics, attitudes, plans, problems, and opinions of Michigan's current maple syrup producers, an attempt was made to collect and disseminate information in this area as well. 3 The specific objectives of this study, were as follows: 1. To determine characteristics of Michigan's maple syrup producers. 2. To determine over a range of different sized operations, the relative cost advantages and profitability of the two basic types of sap collection systems. 3. To determine the type, amount, cost, and utili­ zation of equipment required for various sizes of operations. 4. To determine the utilization of labor, time and duration of peak labor periods, and labor input for specific tasks involved in maple sap collection operations. 5. To identify within each of the two basic sap col­ lection systems, the size of operation that is most profitable. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Producer Surveys In a 1963-64 survey of the recipients of the National Maple Syrup Digest, Taylor et al. that in 14 maple syrup producing states, (1967) found 87 percent of the producers were engaged in farming either full- or parttime. The other 13 percent were of course, non-farmers. On the average, the producers in his study had been producing maple products for 23 years. As might be antici­ pated, it was those with the larger operations who most often reported increasing their total number of taps. And, although only 4 percent of the producers reported buying sap, it was the larger producers again who were doing the bulk of the buying. The percentage of producers buying sap as reported in a 1968 New York survey (Smith, 1969) was somewhat higher than that of the 14 maple producing states as a whole. In this study 23 percent of the total reported purchasing sap. On the other hand, only 6 percent of the producers reported selling any sap. Twenty-eight percent of those interviewed were buying additional syrup, and quite surprisingly, percent of the producers were using some tubing. 4 This 48 5 48 percent portion is probably biased upward as the author notes that the sample was not a random one. A very signifi­ cant finding of this survey revealed that the biggest problem most producers had was in getting an adequate supply of labor during the maple season. Labor problems are not confined solely to New York. Producers in a 1965 Michigan survey cited a shortage of labor at wage rates they can afford as one of the reasons for terminating their maple syrup operations Rudolph, 19 70). (Nyland and Other reasons included advancing age and a lack of adequate profit from past endeavors. Thirty-five percent of these Michigan producers planned to discontinue their maple operation during the ten year period, 1965-1975. Another 43 percent planned to maintain their present level of production, and the remaining 22 percent planned to increase tapping. As it was the larger operations which planned to increase tapping, a net increase in maple syrup production was anticipated in the state during this period. Another interesting finding of this survey was that in 19 6 5 30 percent of the taps in the state's lower pen­ insula were installed on lands not owned by the producers themselves. This percentage was expected to increase to 33 percent by 1975. 6 Maple Sap Production Techniques The traditional method of collecting sap from sugar maple trees (Acer saccharum Marsh)^— tapping the tree, hanging the buckets, emptying the buckets into gathering pails, hand carrying the pails to the collection tank, dumping the sap from the pails into the collection tank, and hauling the tank of sap to the sugar house for proc­ essing into maple syrup and other maple products— is a very labor intensive, expensive undertaking involving much hard work. Willits (1965) is of the opinion that this method of collecting sap is the most expensive and laborous of all operations in syrup production and accounts for at least one-third of the cost of the final product. It is not surprising then, that considerable attention has been focused on more efficient, less costly, less labor inten­ sive methods of getting the sap from the tree to the evaporator. An alternative to the bucket system came into being in the mid-19 50s (Foulds, 19 7 3). At that time plastic tubing networks that carried the sap from the tapholes to a central storage tank were tested and found to be promising (Griggs, 1955; Morrow, 1958; Winch, 1959). system, efforts were made to improve it. As with any new Around 1960, some of these efforts lead to the addition of vacuum pumping to 1Little (1953). 7 encourage sap flow (Flouds, 1973; Laing et al_. , 1960, 1962, 1964; Morrow, 1963). However, tubing did not receive immediate widespread acceptance in Michigan. Nyland and Rudolph (1970) reported that in 196 5 only 2 percent of the producers in the lower peninsula used tubing, and vacuum pumping remained untried in the state until 1968 (Koelling, 1970). Nevertheless, tubing certainly has its proponents. Willits and Sipple (1968) stated that The use of plastic tubing has practically eliminated the hard, unattractive labor of collecting sap that had to be performed under adverse weather and ground con­ ditions. It has also eliminated as much as 40 percent of the cost of sirup-making. No longer is it necessary to construct expensive roadways through the woods to support heavy tanks of sap, nor to open these roads for the maple season following heavy snows. Tapping need not be delayed until the sap season has arrived. Large crews do not have to be hurriedly assembled to tap and hang buckets. Instead, the light-weight plastic tubing can be carried by hand through the w o o d s , whether snowcovered or not. One distinct advantage that tubing systems hold over buckets is potential increases in sap yields. These increases can come about when a natural vacuum is generated or artificial vacuum induced into a closed tubing system (Blum, 1967; Blum and Koelling, Morrow, 1963). 1968; Laing et a l . , 1962; Increases of several fold have been reported under these conditions, occurring even on level or almost level terrain (Morrow and Gibbs, 1969). In addition to increasing yields, the presence of vacuum is also said to aid in the flow of sap by helping to overcome friction, eliminating airlocks, and reducing 8 losses due to freezing, leaks, and reabsorption back into the taphole (Morrow and Gibbs, 1969). There has, however, been some controversy over whether to vent the tubing system or keep it closed. Another controversy has been whether to lay the tubing lines on the ground or suspend them in the air. system, Smith and Gibbs (1971) On a gravity found no significant differ­ ence between sap yields from aerial and ground line tubing when the lines were closed. Smith (1969) also found that if vented spouts are used, either ground or aerial lines could be used with no appreciable difference in sap yields. These same authors recognize the advantage of extra yields produced in closed tubing systems by the development of natural vacuum, and, therefore, recommend the use of closed systems where the topography is sloped. Koelling et_ al^. (1968) report higher yields from closed over vented systems, and suspended over ground systems. They also point out that suspended systems are more cost efficient since they require less tubing, and do not require large expenditures of time pulling lines out of the snow as is common with ground installations. findings of Morrow The (1969, 1972) corroborate those of Koelling et a l . Studies have also shown that vacuum pumping can increase sap yields over those obtained with the natural vacuum that is generated by gravity flow alone Koelling, 1968; Laing et al., 1971). (Blum and Furthermore, high 9 vacuums are associated with high yields, while low vacuums are associated with somewhat lower yields Laing et al_. (Morrow, 1969). (1971) report that not only are higher yields the result of high-vacuum pumping (more than 15 inches of mercury), but the syrup produced from sap so obtained is comparable to that made from gravity-flow sap, and with the exception of manganese, high vacuum pumping apparently does not alter the sap's chemical composition. The conclusion to be drawn from these studies seems to be that when plastic tubing networks are employed for maple sap production, lines should be closed (unvented), and suspended, with a high-vacuum pump attached. Based solely on the results of the research reported above, one might very well conclude that tubing is always more efficient, and that higher yields can always be realized with tubing in comparison to those obtained with buckets. case. In actual practice this is not necessarily the In some of the earliest work with tubing systems, yields from buckets exceeded those from tubing. trate, Morrow To illus­ (1958) reported the following yields: Quarts Per Tap Buckets 97 Hillside Tubing 81 Flat-Ground Tubing 62 10 And in a recent study by Kearl conditions, (1970), under actual field 31 producers with buckets averaged 9.5 gallons of sap per tap, while 12 producers with tubing averaged a somewhat lower 8.9 gallons per tap. From the foregoing discussion, it is obvious that considerable differences of opinion exist concerning the relative merits of plastic tubing systems. involve personal preferences. Many of these However, as with any pro­ duction process, some advantages and disadvantages are inherent in the system. For tubing systems these have been summarized in part by Willits (1965) and Foulds (1973). Included are the following: Advantages 1. Potentially higher yields than buckets. 2. Cleaner sap. 3. Great reduction in gathering time. 4. Avoidance of sap losses from over-flowing buckets. 5. Elimination of spillage losses occurring in transfering sap from buckets to gathering pails and from gathering pails to collection tanks. Disadvantages 1. Difficulty with hanging during cold weather. 2. Longer time required for set-up. 3. Loss of sap storage capacity available in hanging buckets. 11 4. Susceptibility to rodent damage. 5. Washing problems. Costs of Maple Sap Production In contrast to the considerable research effort into technology and methodology of maple sap production, studies to determine the specific costs of sap collection for the two basic collection systems have been limited. In the few studies that have been completed, costs have gener­ ally been separated, if at all, by size of operation, rather than distinguishing between the type of collection system used. Sap production costs are important as they may account for up to 60 percent of labor cost and 40 percent of total costs in syrup production (Morrow, 1968). And it has been stated that plastic tubing in some instances may lower the cost of making maple syrup by as much as 4 0 per­ cent (Willits, 1965). In a Wisconsin study (Acker eit al. , 1970) , various costs of sap production were reported for five small (average size— 710 taps) size--2,611 taps) and ten medium to large operations. (average Variable costs for sap pro­ duction were found to be 2 8C per taphole for the small operations, which averaged 10.7 gallons of sap per tap, and 29<= per taphole for the medium to large operations, which averaged 8.2 gallons of sap per tap. Fixed costs were not included in this analysis, so the reported data do not 12 reflect the average total cost per taphole of sap pro­ duction. Also, no distinction was made between bucket and tubing collection systems. The authors did report that two out of the 15 operators collected part of their sap with tubing. In some of his early work with tubing, Morrow (1961) estimated that to install, maintain, take down, and clean plastic tubing and equipment approximately eight minutes of labor was required per taphole per year. At the $1.50 per hour cost he used, this comes to a 20$ per taphole annual labor charge. If the wage rate for labor is increased to $2.00 per hour, the annual labor cost becomes 27C per tap, with this cost increasing to 33C per tap when $2.50 per hour is used. In 1963, he estimated similarly equipped plastic tubing systems could be vacuum-pumped for i an additional 11C per taphole per year. A feasibility study prepared by the Northeast Kingdom Area Rural Development Committee (Elliott et a l . , undated) estimates that a 16,000-tap, unvented, 18-inch drop, suspended tubing installation would have a tubing cost of $1.01 per taphole. Total cost of equipment for this installation was estimated at $17,460 or $1.09 per tap. Annual costs to deliver the sap to roadside pickup points were estimated by the group to be: 13 Taphole rent Depreciation $1,739.00 (10 y r . , straight line) 1,746.00 Interest on capital @ 7 percent 1,222.00 Tapping labor— 60 man days 0 $2.50 per hour 1 ,200.00 $5,907.00 or $.37 per tap These costs are considerably lower than those estimated by Nyland and Rudolph (196 9) for sap production in Michigan's lower peninsula. Their study, although based on a specific localized model, estimated that a producer using tubing can deliver sap to his own saphouse at a cost per tap of $.7 3 to $.96. a taphole rental value. These estimates do not include With an average yield of 15 gal­ lons per tap, a producer using tubing and vacuum can, according to these researchers, deliver sap to his own saphouse for $.05 to $.06 per gallon. If yields are 20 gallons per tap, then costs are expected to be reduced to $.04 to $.05 per gallon. A recent report by Morrow studies covering seven years (19 72) on tubing cost (1966-1972) at Cornell's two fields stations, Arnot Forest and Heaven Hill, reported costs in agreement with those of Nyland and Rudolph. Morrow's study appears to show economies of scale, as the 1400-tap tubing operation on the Arnot Forest exhibited an average cost per tap of $1.17, while the 3,800-tap oper­ ation at Heaven Hill averaged $.89 per tap. These data 14 include capital costs, labor costs (@ $3.60 per hour), operating costs, sap delivery costs, and land and tree value. Kearl (1970) also reports economies of scale. His findings showed that as the size of the operation was increased up through the 5,000 + size class (6,544 taps per producer on the average), average total cost decreased. This is for bucket and tubing collection systems combined. Kearl's study is also significant in that it does differentiate between bucket and tubing systems, while most others do not. Costs for the 31 farmers in the study who used only buckets averaged $1.00 per tap, while for the 12 who used only tubing average costs per tap were $1.02. Although labor cost was decreased for the tubing operations, equipment cost was sufficiently higher to offset the savings, resulting in no significant cost advantage for either system. It should be noted, however, that this comparison was only incidental to the main study and was noL intended to be an indepth comparison of the two systems. METHODS OF STUDY The research was divided into two distinct parts: (1) a survey of Michigan's maple syrup producers to identify their characteristics, attitudes, plans, and problems, and (2) an analysis of costs and returns for maple sap pro­ duction in Michigan. Although seemingly unrelated, the two parts are in certain respects complementary, as the former was designed to reinforce the latter, while at the same time providing a broader base for data collection. Collection of Data In late 1972 and early 1973 a survey questionnaire was sent to all the maple syrup producers in the State of Michigan for which a mailing address could be obtained. The mailing list included the names of the Michigan subscribers to the National Maple Syrup Digest and a list of producers supplied by the county extension agents. A total of 630 questionnaires was mailed. Questions asked in the survey were of a varied nature and covered many aspects of the maple industry Appendix A). (see More specifically, information of a general nature, information concerning sap and syrup production 15 16 methods and plans, management and labor information, and producer suggestions were all sought. Some of the infor­ mation solicited in the survey was the same as that sought in the indepth interviews of the cooperating producers, with the survey serving to broaden the data base and allow for generalization of the results for the state as a whole. To obtain the necessary cost and labor data, and to accomplish that portion of the study's objectives, 14 operators of 17 separate Michigan sugarbushes were recruited as cooperators in the project for the first year of data collection, 1972. This number was expanded to 19 cooper­ ators and their 24 sugarbushes for the 1973 season. By collecting data for two consecutive seasons, it was hoped that the influence of weather on sap yields and hence, labor productivity, although impossible to control, would tend to "average out." The cooperating sugarbush operators were separated into two groups of approximately equal size. The first group consisted of sugarbush operators employing the con­ ventional bucket system of sap collection, while the second included those utilizing vacuum pumped plastic tubing systems. In soliciting cooperators, an effort was made to obtain for both groups a uniform distribution of sizes over the 500- to 3,000-tap range. The operations actually ranged in size from 500 to 2,685 tapholes for bucket systems and 300 to 2,850 tapholes for tubing. Roadside 17 bushes were excluded because of obvious yield and cost advantages over woods operations. Invaluable assistance in locating cooperators was rendered by Dr. Melvin R. Koelling, Extension Specialist in Forestry at Michigan State University. Because of his intimate knowledge of the maple syrup industry in Michigan and his many personal contacts with the state's maple syrup producers, it was a relatively simple task to enlist cooperators in the research effort. However, to have a sufficient number and range of sugarbushes to carry out the study, the cooperators were by necessity located throughout the state in both the upper and lower peninsulas (Fig. 1). The study's cooperators do not by any means consti­ tute a random sample of the maple producers in Michigan. They are, instead, representative of a particular size of operation employing a particular type of sap collection system. If any bias exists in the sample, it is toward the "above average" operation rather than the "below average." A list of the cooperators by type of collection system and size of operation is presented in Appendices B and C. After recruiting the cooperators, the next step was to conduct an indepth interview of each operator concerning his maple operation. At the time of the interview, each cooperator was provided with standardized time and cost record-keeping forms and intensively instructed in their use. Then, as time permitted, an inventory was made of the 18 '““ “ “ I t U B W |0i*00* , *ieo«. TUBING COLLECTION SYSTEM BUCKET COLLECTION SYSTEM W i i «i Fig. 1. Location of Cooperating Bucket and Tubing Operations, 1973. 19 sap production equipment and materials used at each location. In designing the inventory, interview, and record­ keeping forms, the maple syrup production and marketing record forms published by the University of Wisconsin were borrowed freely (Anonymous, undated). The original forms used in 1972 were revised for the 1973 season, with an attempt made to simplify the record-keeping task, add a greater degree of control, and yet allow for the gathering of essentially the same information as was gathered in 1972. Examples of the revised version of all the forms can be found in Appendices D through L. As cost differences between the two sap collection systems were to be isolated, it was essential that time studies be incorporated in the procedure. These time studies would help to determine what the labor input was doing in a particular sap collection system and how long it took to do it. Labor inputs were estimated by the operators to the nearest quarter-hour and recorded on the forms provided. Work activities were separated as follows: Preparation: Included labor time devoted to cleaning and repairing buckets or tubing, tapping equipment, snowshoes, etc. Also, where appropriate, this included the time spent in snow removal and cleaning woods roads. Set-up: Included the labor time involved in tapping, inserting germicidal pellets, inserting spiles, laying 20 out and hanging buckets, tubing system, layout and installation of the installation of collection tanks or storage reservoirs, etc. Sap gathering: Involved the labor time of all aspects of the sap collection phase including in particular, the time spent collecting sap from the individual taps and trans­ porting it to a common collection point at roadside. Also included was the time spent dumping ice or spoiled sap as well as time required to determine if sap collection was warranted. Similarly, the time spent checking for leaks, repairing and maintaining the sap collection system and associated equipment was also included. Take do w n : Included the labor time involved in dis­ assembling the sap collection system as well as the time required for cleaning and storing equipment. As labor inputs vary with the quantity of sap produced, especially with the bucket collection system, gallons of sap gathered each day and its percent soluble sugar were recorded. The cooperators also recorded the amount and kind of power used each day (i.e., hours of tractor usage, hours of vacuum pumping, etc.). Intensive checking and supervision of operators early in the season and checking at intervals throughout the season ensured that the required data were recorded in the proper manner. Without exception all operators the 21 were very cooperative and maintained excellent records. Many expressed their willingness to expend the time and effort simply because they thought the research project to be a worthwhile endeavor. Analysis of Data Maple Producer Survey Of the 6 30 survey forms mailed out/ 36 7 were returned, giving a return ratio of 58.2 percent. However, out of the 367 returned questionnaires, only 14 0 were com­ pleted by active producers. Thus, these 140 constitute the sample. Once the producer questionnaire was received, processing of the survey data began. Statistical analyses were completed on the data where appropriate. These included T-tests for differences between two means, linear correlation analysis, and analysis of covariance to test for differences between slope and level of two regression lines. Management and labor information obtained in the survey was used later in the cost analysis. Sap Yields At the close of the 1972 season it became obvious that there were differences in sap yields between the two sap collection systems. The average yield per tap for operations using the bucket system was 14.1 gallons for that year, while the tubing operations showed an average 22 yield of 7.2 gallons per tap. This difference was signifi­ cant at the 5 percent level of testing. Additional study showed that, generally speaking, yields were greatest in the southern-most portions of Michigan, which enjoyed what was called a "good average year," and the further north the location of the operation, the poorer the yield, with the poorest sap yields coming from the state's upper peninsula. These trends were demonstrated by the study's cooperators and were borne out by the producer survey as well. By dividing the state into north and south portions at 44° north latitude and testing for differences in yields between the two sections, it was found that there were statistical differences at the 10 (significant percent level of testing) between yields for both cooperating bucket and tubing operations. Part, but not all, of the reason for this poor showing of tubing operations could be attributed to the fact that although cooperators using both bucket and tubing systems were located in both the northern and southern portions of the state, tubing operations tended to be weighted more heavily toward the north, and bucket oper­ ations toward the south. This was natural as tubing has enjoyed a wider acceptance in northern Michigan where the terrain is more suited to its use. Southern Michigan sugarbushes tend to be relatively level with slopes of 5 percent or less. 23 In an effort to achieve a better balance between bucket and tubing operations in both sections of the state and also to fill in some gaps in the distribution of oper­ ations over the 500 to 3,000-tap range, seven additional operations were added for the 1973 season. The 1973 season proved to be different from 1972, as it was a "below average" year in southern Michigan and was considered to be "above average" in the north. Actually, for the study's cooperators, yield differences between the two sections of the state were not statistically signifi­ cant, nor were the differences in yields between bucket and tubing operations for this season, although once again buckets had the higher average yield per tap. It might be concluded that the additional operations included in 197 3 had the desired effect. Differences between the 1972 and the 197 3 maple seasons as determined by combining bucket and tubing operations were statistically significant at the level of testing. 10 percent When analyzed separately, differences between the two seasons were statistically significant at the 5 percent level for bucket operations, but were not significant for tubing operations. Although there were differences in sap yields for bucket operations between the two seasons, the effect of these differences on labor time as reported by the study's cooperators was not significant. Labor inputs for bucket collection systems in 1972 were not statistically 24 different from those of 1973. tubing systems as well. This holds true for the In view of these findings, there is no valid reason why the two seasons of data cannot be combined, which was the procedure that was followed in all subsequent analyses. Also, by combining the two seasons, the data base is broadened to 20 operations using the bucket collection system, and 21 operations using the tubing collection system. Costs and Returns in Maple Sap Production Equipment investment.— Costs incurred in the pro­ duction of maple sap include those for equipment and materials, management. labor, taphole rental or sugarbush value, and Of these various costs, the largest initial cost facing a producer is that of the investment in equip­ ment. The initial step in this analysis was to determine the amount of equipment required for each of the two sap collection systems. This was accomplished by first taking a physical inventory of each cooperator's sap production equipment. Next, the inventory lists were compared and standard equipment lists drawn up, for only by standardizing the equipment could any meaningful results be obtained. These standard lists of equipment with 1973 prices and price sources are presented in Appendices M and N. 25 The standard lists are self-explanatory with the exception of the standard number of feet per taphole for each size of plastic tubing. The values used here were averages for all the sugarbushes using the tubing system. This procedure was used because each sugarbush differed from the next in tapholes per acre, number of tapholes per tree, etc. The price of each vacuum pump assembly requires some further explanation as well. As it was impossible to standardize this piece of equipment, estimates of its value were obtained from each cooperator for his particular assembly, and these values were used as the price of the assembly, after making appropriate allowances. After determining from the standard list the quantity of each item in the equipment inventory and its price, it was a simple matter to multiply price times quantity and arrive at a total equipment investment cost for each operation. This is the procedure that was used for all equipment except tractors and snowmobiles; the nature of these two pieces of equipment necessitated a different approach. Because maple producers for the most part are farmers who use their tractors in other farm operations (e.g., plowing, mowing, towing, etc.) and their snowmobiles for recreation, it would be inequitable to charge the total investment of these pieces of equipment to the maple enter­ prise. For this reason the investment in each was prorated according to the hours of actual usage in the maple 26 operation and then added to the equipment investment total. The basis for the prorating was a useful mechanical life of 12,000 hours for tractors (Bowers, 1970), and 300 hours or four years for snowmobiles. 2 Once the total equipment investment was determined for each operation, correlation analysis was completed for each of the two collection systems to determine if a linear relationship existed between the number of tapholes and equipment investment. Annual equipment c o s t s.— The total investment in sap production equipment is an important value, but to use it as the cost of producing sap for any one year would be erroneous as the equipment is used over a period of years. Standard procedure is to depreciate the equipment over the number of years of expected usage, and add a charge for interest on the remaining investment. A recast version of the discount annuity formula does this very nicely, the procedure used in this analysis a = (1 + i)n (i) (1 + i)n - (Davis, (V) 1 U.S. Forest Service records. 1966) : and was 27 where, a = the annual cost i = the rate of interest V = the initial cost or investment n = the number of years the equipment is depreciated. The depreciation period used in these computations was ten years for all equipment except buckets and snow­ mobiles. Since buckets were expected to last twenty years, and snowmobiles four years, these time periods were used instead. The interest rate used in the calculations was a composite rate reflecting the cost of capital as well as charges for insurance and shelter for the equipment. In the spring of 1973 the rate of interest on farm equipment loans charged by the Production Credit Association of Lansing was 8.5 percent. This rate is representative of the cost of capital to farmers in the state at that time, and since most maple producers are farmers, this rate was used. Insurance of the equipment from losses due to fire and theft is also part of the cost of ownership, whether the owner pays an insurance premium or assumes the risk himself. The insurance premium for this type of equipment was $.55 per hundred dollars of valuation in 1973, with the coverage extending up to 100 percent of the value of the 28 equipment.^ If it is assumed that the average investment is approximately one-half of the original cost, then the annual insurance charge can be expressed as a percentage of the original cost (Hunt, 196 4). Using this procedure, the annual charge for insurance on sap production equipment was 0.2 75 percent of the original equipment investment. Shelter for the equipment used in sap production is a must if the equipment is to be maintained in a servicable condition. It has been estimated that the annual cost of shelter for farm equipment is approximately the original price of this equipment basis, an annual charge of 1 1 percent of (Hunt, 1964). On this percent was made for sheltering of the equipment used in sap production. Summation of these charges leads to an interest rate of 9.775 percent (8.5 + 0.275 + 1.0), which is the rate used to arrive at the annual cost of the equipment. This annual equipment cost can be regarded as a fixed cost. Equipment operation and maintenance costs.— In addition to the fixed costs chargeable to equipment owner­ ship, there are variable costs encountered as well. Vari­ able equipment costs are those costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the energy consuming equipment including fuel and lubricant costs, repairs, nance. and mainte­ A listing of operation and maintenance cost by Farm Bureau Insurance Group quotation. 29 piece of equipment is presented in Table 1, while the manner in which these costs were computed is explained in Appendix O. Since each cooperator kept a record of the number of hours each piece of equipment was in use, this time was multiplied by the cost per hour from Table 1 to arrive at the annual cost of operating and maintaining that equipment. Table 1.— Operation and Maintenance Costs— Powered Equip­ ment. Cost Per Hour Item Dollars Tractor 1. 51 Snowmobile 2 Vacuum Pump .0068-.1575a Bucket Washer .0090a Tubing Washer .004 8 a . 16 Operating cost only. Material expenses.--Out-of-pocket expenses that occur periodically in producing maple sap, although not large in comparison to equipment or labor charges, are a definite cost of production and must be treated as such. Included are outlays for supplies and materials regardless of the type of collection system used. bits, germicidal pellets, These include drill and cleaning agents. In addition, 30 producers using bucket systems incur a cost when replacing worn out washer brushes, as do operators using tubing who purchase paint to remark the location of tubing lines and wire to tie the suspended mainlines to wire supports. Although all of these expenses are not encountered each year, they do occur periodically and an annual cost can be computed. See Appendix P for a list of these material expenses, their prices, price source, and the quantity allocated. There has been some question in recent years about the advisibility of using germicidal pellets in tapholes to prolong sap flow and increase sap yields 19 70; Smith e_t a^L. , 1970) . (Shigo and Laing, But, as most of the study's cooperators in both bucket and tubing systems continue to use them, this cost was included in the analysis. Labor costs and labor utilization.— As has been pointed out earlier, one of the largest single costs of producing maple sap, especially when the bucket collection system is employed, is the cost of the labor inputs. Understandably, a significant portion of this analysis is devoted to labor, its usage and its cost. One of the first tests in this analysis was for differences in labor inputs between the two sap collection systems. A significant statistical difference here might lead to a recommendation of one system over the other, all other factors being equal. 31 Average times were computed for each work activity, so comparisons could be made and conclusions drawn as to the relative advantages or disadvantages of each system for that specific activity. It was anticipated, for example, that there would be no appreciable difference in average tapping time between the two systems, but that there would be differences in the time spent gathering sap. Hopefully, the analysis would bring out these differences. Arriving at a labor cost for each operation was a relatively simple matter, and involved the multiplication of the labor inputs from the operator's daily time record by the wage rate. The wage rate used in this instance was the $ 2 . 0 0 per hour statewide average obtained from the producer survey. The average wage paid in 19 72 was not increased in 1973 as none of the 19 cooperators increased wages paid for labor. As a matter of fact, one producer lowered his wage rate from that paid in 1972 when labor rate of $ 2 . 0 0 per hour, became more available to him. In addition to the wage there are other wage extras that accrue when labor is employed. One such wage extra is the social security tax, and the other is workmen's compensation insurance. As most of the 19 maple producers in the study pay social security tax, its cost was included in computing the cost of labor inputs in sap production. At the time of this study, employers were required under the law to withhold 5.85 p e r­ cent of the employee's cash wages, plus pay an equal amount 32 from their own funds. 4 The net effect of this requirement is an increase in the wage rate to $ 2 . 1 2 per hour 1.0585 = $2.12). ($2 . 0 0 x This latter rate was used in all labor cost computations. Determining the effect of workmen's compensation on the cost of labor inputs was not as simple or as straight­ forward as that of social security. Under the Michigan Workmen's Compensation Act, employers are required to provide workmen's compensation coverage for their employees if they ". . . regularly employ 3 or more employees at 1 time" or ". . . regularly employ less than 3 employees if at least 1 of them has been regularly employed by that employer for 35 or more hours per week for 13 weeks or 5 longer during the preceding 52 weeks." Many if not most maple sap producers meet these minimums. Those not meeting the requirements would tend to have operations of a few hundred buckets not necessitating the employment of a labor force, operations that use only family labor, or one man tubing operations of a small to medium size. Rates for workmen's compensation coverage for maple sap production are $ 6 . 1 2 per $100 of payroll,^ but a 4 U.S. Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Ser­ vice, Lansing, Michigan. Personal communication. ^Sec. 115 Michigan Workmen’s Compensation Act as interpreted in a December 21, 1972, ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court. g Farm Bureau Insurance Group quotation. 33 complicating factor is the minimum premium. The minimum is 25 times the rate per $100 of payroll plus $30 for "loss and expense constants" the minimum is $183 (Shapley, 197 3). In this instance, [($6.12 x 25) + $30]. This is an extremely high premium if a producer only has a $ 1 0 0 - $ 2 0 0 payroll, as did some of the smaller producers in the study. As a matter of fact, none of the study's cooperators reach the "break-even" point on the workmen's compensation premium. The break-even point is defined here as the point above which the actual rate is $ 6 . 1 2 per $100 Below this point the actual rate is higher. of payroll. For a $100 payroll the actual rate is $183 per $100 of payroll. To reach the break-even point would require a payroll of $2,990 ($183/.0612). The largest payroll among the study's cooperators was only $1,560 for a 2,605-tap operation. Because of this high minimum premium, some producers forego workmen's compensation coverage and assume the risk themselves. By not paying for this insurance coverage, producer lowers his cost or conversely, returns by $183. the increases his But this is done at a very high risk (loss of his farm is within the realm of possibilities), and is a direct violation of the law. In view of this seemingly inequitable high minimum premium, and considering that some of the cooperators in the study did not provide workmen's compensation coverage while others did, the approach used in this analysis was 34 to calculate labor cost both with and without the $183 minimum premium. Maple stand c o sts.— Another cost involved in maple sap production is that of owning the land and trees, or if tapholes are rented, the cost of taphole rental. In New York it was estimated that the value of land and trees for sap production, when computed as the sum of timber growth loss plus taxes, was 10 cents per taphole Morrow, 1972). (Kearl, 1970; Ten cents per taphole is also the rental fee paid most often by Michigan producers who gather sap 7 from trees they do not own. From this it seems appropri­ ate to charge 10 cents per taphole as the cost of the maple stand in sap production. This figure was used in the analysis. Management co sts.— An important but often over­ looked cost in the production of maple sap is the value of the time spent by the producer in what might be termed management activiLies. In this context, management activi­ ties include the following: keeping, hiring, supplies, etc. firing, thinking, planning, book­ attending meetings, ordering Labor performed by the producer is not considered a management activity according to this defi­ nition . 7 Melvin R. Koelling, 1973. Personal communication. 35 In an attempt to arrive at the time devoted to these activities, a question in the statewide survey asked, as was each cooperator in the cost study, for an estimate of the number of hours spent per year managing the sap production operation. An analysis was then completed on the survey data to determine if any correlation existed between the number of management hours and the size of the operation (number of tapholes) for each of the two systems. Correlation coefficients of .0621 for bucket operations and .0546 for tubing were obtained. statistically significant, Since neither of these was it was concluded that such a relationship did not exist. However, some estimate of the cost of management had to be made. Although somewhat arbitrary, it was assumed that bucket and tubing operations require the same amount of management time as there was no real basis for any other assumption. Bucket systems no doubt require more super­ vision of labor, but tubing requires more planning, with the two activities appearing to offset each other. The number of hours devoted to management activities was finally determined by empirically evaluating the data provided by the cooperators and the survey respondents. Data determined in this manner and used in the analysis ranged from a low of 13 management hours per year for a 300 taphole operation to a high of 29 hours for 2,850 tapholes. Finally, management cost was calculated by multi­ plying the number of hours devoted to management activities 36 by the value of the producer's time spent in these activi­ ties. The average rate reported by respondents to the survey was $3.00 per hour. Total, average total, and marginal costs and returns.— The most important cost figure of all, total cost (TC) is the sum of all the other costs: annual equipment costs, equipment operation and maintenance costs, material costs, labor costs, maple stand costs, and management costs. Once total cost is determined, other relevant cost figures can be derived from it, i.e., average total cost marginal cost (MC). Furthermore, (ATC) and if output and price can be estimated, the break-even point, marginal size, and net return can be determined. What was desired in this analysis was a way of expressing the relationship between total cost, an endoge­ nous variable, and size of the operation (as measured by the number of tapholes), an exogenous variable. The following model served to accomplish this objective: Y = 8 O + B,X 1 + 3„x2 + 3-,x3 2 3 where BQ , 8 ^* &2r anc^ ^3 are t*ie regression coefficients Y = the total cost X = the number of tapholes. 37 The model applies to both bucket and tubing collection systems, and is a mathematical expression of the total cost curve. To fit the model, the sets of observations from each of the two sap collection systems were used to obtain esti­ mates of the regression coefficients. the estimation procedure used. Least squares was Computations were made, with the aid of the EZLS program of Dr. Wayne L. Myers, on Michigan State University's CDC 6500 computer. Once the regression coefficients have been determined the fitted equation becomes a predictive one, which can be used to predict total cost for a given number of tapholes. After the prediction equations had been obtained for both collection systems under consideration, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was run to test for a statistical difference between the two total cost curves that the equations expressed. The results of the ANCOVA are important, because they establish any real differences between bucket and tubing collection systems as to the cost of maple sap production. Obtaining average total cost per taphole from total cost is a relatively simple procedure, and involves the division of total cost by the number of tapholes. Marginal cost is the change in total cost that accompanies a change in the number of tapholes. of the total cost function. It is also the first derivative Thus, 38 Since Total cost = Y = Bq + Marginal cost = 8^ + &2 X 2 + B3 x 3 = 3j_ + 2B2X + 3B 3 X 2 To arrive at break-even size, marginal size, and a maximum profit (minimum loss) estimate, outputs of 15, and 20 gallons of sap per tap were assumed. 5 , 10 , This covers the range of sap yields experienced by the study's cooperators over the two consecutive seasons of data collection (the low reported was 3.8 gallons of sap per tap, while the high was 19.2). As the price paid for sap is a function of its sugar content, a range of sugar con­ centration prices. (°Brix) values was assumed, along with associated These values are as follows: ar Content Brix& Price Per Gallon Dollars 1.5 .05 2.0 .07 2.5 .09 3. 0 .1 1 O °Brix is an expression of percent sugar concen­ tration determined by specific gravity or optical density of the sap. q 1972 Basic Sap Price Schedule, Rutland County (Vermont) Maple Producers Association. 39 Since average °Brix values reported by the cooperators over the two years varied from a low of 1.5 to a high of 2.7, the assumed sap sugar percentages appear reasonable. Total revenue (TR) for a given yield and sugar con­ centration is computed by multiplying the yield per tap in gallons times the price per gallon times the number of tapholes. of 10 For example, for 1,000 tapholes yielding an average gallons of sap per tap with an average sap sugar con­ centration of 2.0 °Brix, total revenue is 1,000 x 10 x $.07 = $700. Net return is determined by subtracting total cost from total revenue. If total cost and total revenue are equal, this is the break-even point. In this instance it is the number of tapholes required to pay for all incurred expenses, no profits are earned, but on the other hand no losses are suffered. Marginal revenue (MR) is the change in total revenue that accompanies a change in the number of tapholes. the above example, In if the number of tapholes is increased by one to 1,001, total revenue is increased by 70 cents to $700.70, so the marginal revenue is 70 cents. Since a constant price has been assumed, marginal revenue average revenue) (also can also be computed by multiplying the sap yield in gallons per tap by its price. Ten gallons of sap per tap at seven cents per gallon also yields 70 cents of revenue per tap. 40 By computing marginal revenue and marginal cost, means has been provided for determining, a via marginal analysis, maximum profits or, conversely, minimum losses. Profits are at a maximum when marginal revenue is equal to marginal cost. In this analysis the term marginal size is used to denote the size of the operation in number of tapholes at which for a given sap yield and sugar content marginal revenue equals marginal cost. Minimum cost per taphole good indicator of maximum profit. (minimum ATC) is not a There is only one con­ dition under which minimum ATC denotes maximum returns. This occurs when, and only when, marginal revenue, marginal cost, and average total cost are equal. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Characteristics of Michigan Maple Syrup Producers Occupation and Years in Production Most producers of maple products in Michigan, percent, 56 list some kind of agricultural endeavor as their principal occupation (Table 2). This is somewhat lower than the 80 percent who were classed as full-time farmers in a 1963 survey of 14 maple producing states et a l. , 1967). (Taylor These percentages might be expected to be in closer agreement even though the surveys were conducted nine years apart and covered two different geographical areas. It is conceivable that the differences indicate a change in farm population, with the role of the full-time farmer declining during the period between the surveys. The next most frequently listed occupation by the producers was some type of industrial employment: cent of the respondents are in this category; 10 16 per­ percent of the producers are retired; and 18 percent work for the government, are employed by institutions, or have some other occupation. 41 Table 2.— Principal Occupation of Maple Syrup Producers in Michigan, 1972. Size of Operation {Tapholes} Retired Agriculture Industry Govt. Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent 0-499 15 44 18 8 5 10 500-999 10 59 13 5 5 8 1000-1499 12 62 15 1500-1999 • • 75 • 2000-2499 • ♦ 46 27 3000-3499 20 60 20 • « * • • • 3500+ « 86 14 • « « » • • 56 16 Average 10 • • Institutions Other3 « * • • 12 • t • • 25 27 4 3 11 a Kiwanis Club Official, Real Estate Broker, Housewife, Mechanic, Professional. 43 The data presented in Table 2 show that, time and age factors tend to force retired producers and those with other than agricultural employment, to limit the size of their operations. In the smallest size class (0-499 taps), 15 percent of the producers are retired and 41 percent have principal occupations other than agriculture, for a total of 56 percent retired or employed outside of agriculture. In contrast, for the largest size class (3500 taps and over) no producers are retired and only 14 percent are employed outside of agriculture. Michigan producers have been producing maple pro­ ducts at the same location for an average of 2 3 years. Surprisingly, this is the same as reported by Taylor et a l . (1967) for all producers in 14 maple producing states in 1963. A tabulation of the producers in Michigan by age would be interesting, but unfortunately this information is not available, as age was inadvertently omitted from the survey questionnaire. Nonetheless, since almost one™third, 30 percent, of the producers are retired or have been producing in excess of 40 years, this would seem to indicate that a disproportionate number are of an advanced age. The vast majority, 96 percent, of Michigan producers run an integrated maple operation, producing both maple sap and maple syrup. The remaining 4 percent of the producers produce maple sap only. None of the producers 44 responding to the survey reported producing maple syrup without producing sap as well. Operation Size Small operations are the rule and not the exception in Michigan, where 58 percent of the operations have less than 1,000 tapholes (Table 3). However, only 25 percent of the total number of tapholes are in operations of this size. The larger operations, those with 3500 or more tapholes, have 23 percent of the tapholes, but only 4 percent of the producers. As would be anticipated from a perusal of Table 3, there is a negative at the 1 correlation (statistically significant percent level of testing) between size of the operation and number of producers. There are a large number of producers with operations of a few hundred tapholes but as the size of the operation increases, the number of producers decreases, with only a very few pro­ ducers having the largest operations. Maple syrup producers in Michigan did not find a sufficient number of tapholes on their own properties to meet their needs in 19 72; rather, they also tapped trees belonging to others. year, Of all the tapholes installed that 18 percent were on non-owned properties (Table 4). This is a slight increase over the 1968-72 average, but the increase is not of a sufficient magnitude to be statisti­ cally significant. 45 Table 3.— Distribution of Tapholes and Producers by Size of Operation, 1972. Frequency Distribution Size of Operation (Tapholes) Taphole Basis Producer Basis Number Percent Number 0-499 11,121 7 40 29 500-999 29,145 18 41 29 1000-1499 30,775 19 27 19 1500-1999 14,506 9 9 6 2000-2499 23,425 15 2500-2999 • • 3000-3499 15,000 9 5 4 3500-3999 7, 350 5 2 1 4000-4499 4,000 2 1 1 • Percent 11 • • 8 • 0 * 5000-5499 * 5500-5900 11,300 7 2 1 7000-7499 14,000 9 2 1 • * » • • ■ * 46 Table 4.— Tapholes on Owned and Non-Owned Properties, Size of Operation (Tapholes) Tapholes Owned Non-Owned Percent Percent 0-499 83 17 500-999 87 13 1000-1499 79 21 1500-1999 69 31 2000-2499 78 22 3000-3499 70 30 3500+ 91 9 82 18 Average 1972. There is some disparity between the 18 percent reported here for tapholes on non-owned properties and the 30 percent quoted by Nyland and Rudolph (1970). It is doubtful that the tapping of non-owned properties decreased by 12 percent over the seven years from 1965 to 1972. Nyland and Rudolph anticipated an increase in tapping of non-owned properties between 196 5 and 1975, and the respondents to the survey reported approximately the same proportion of tapholes on owned vs. non-owned properties for the five years, 1968-1972, as they did in 1972. The difference probably lies in the relative weights given in the two surveys to the small scattered sugarbushes of 47 southern Michigan. The 1965 survey of Nyland and Rudolph applied only to Michigan's lower peninsula, while the 1972 survey covered the entire state. The earlier survey gave a greater weight to the small scattered sugarbushes, and consequently showed a greater percentage of tapholes on non-owned properties. When the number of tappable trees is small, the producer often turns to sugarbushes other than his own to fulfill his needs for maple sap. In analyzing the data, it was thought that there was a tendency in the larger operations, because of their size, to have a larger proportion of their tapholes on non-owned properties than do the smaller operations. failed to bear this out. However, correlation analysis The results were statistically nonsignificant. There was a tendency, though, for the Michigan producers to increase the size of their operation in 1972 over what it had averaged from 1968 through 1972. The average number of tapholes iri 197 2 for all producers was 1,144, which was up slightly from 1,139 for the 19 68-72 period. This trend was true for all size classes with the exception of the smallest operations, 0-499 tapholes, which declined from a five-year average of 2 86 tapholes per operation to 279 tapholes per operation in 1972. Limiting Factors in Sap and Syrup Production Of the factors that limited the number of tapholes in 1972, the one most frequently cited— 19 percent of the 48 time on the average— by the survey respondents was a lack of time to do more tapping (Table 5). It may come as a surprise that there is a negative correlation (statistically significant at the 10 percent level of testing) between the size of the operation and the frequency with which this factor was listed as being a limiting one. operation, The smaller the the more frequently lack of time was mentioned as limiting the number of tapholes in 1972. However, if it is recalled that producers working at occupations outside of agriculture tended to limit the size of their operations, and since these same producers constituted one-third of the sample, then this relationship is not surprising. Labor availability was the next most frequent reason for limiting the number of tapholes in 1972 cent) ; followed by size of the evaporator lack of tapholes on the property sap gathering equipment cent); and other factors (16 per­ (13 p e r c en t ); (12 p e r c e n t ) ; amount of (12 percent); experience (12 per­ (8 percent). Although cited as a limiting factor 4 and 2 percent of the time respectively by all the respondents to the survey, only the respondents with the small to medium-sized operations stated that it does not pay to tap more or did not have a market for their sap or syrup. Evidently pro­ ducers with larger operations do not experience these difficulties. The producers with the larger operations do indicate that a lack of tapholes in their area is a limiting factor more often than do the smaller operations, Table 5.— Factors that Limited the Number of Tapholes per Operation in 1972. Size of Operation (Tapholes) Item 0-499 500-999 1000-1499 1500-1999 2000-2499 3000-3499 3500 + Average Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent No more taps on property 17 13 5 8 21 25 ♦ ■ 12 No more taps in area 2 1 • 7 12 • • 2 Amount of sap gathering equipment 8 9 17 23 7 25 22 12 Size of evaporator 11 15 15 8 11 13 3 2 3 No time to tap more 28 20 14 15 14 Labor not available 6 19 20 23 29 It doesn't pay to tap more 5 2 5 8 Experience 5 14 15 15 16 4 5 No market for sap or syrup Othera aAge, Hobby only, Snow conditions. * • • • * • • • 12 * • • * 2 12 • • 19 12 11 16 « « 14 * • 33 12 7 * * 22 8 « • 4 • « * • ■ 50 although overall this factor was found to be the least limiting of all those listed. Production Trends Sugar maple trees tapped in Michigan in 1972 averaged 1.73 tapholes each. There was wide variation in this number, with survey respondents reporting numbers averaging as low as 1.0 and as high as 3.5 tapholes per tree. While there are notable exceptions, it is generally true that trees in southern Michigan sugarbushes are larger than those in the north, and consequently, can be expected to have more tapholes per tree. The weather patterns during the 1972 season caused a considerable variation in sap yields as noted earlier. The average yield for the state in that year was 11.8 gallons of sap per taphole. Reported yields ranged from a low in northern Michigan of 4 gallons per tap to 25 gallons per tap in southern Michigan near the Indiana line. Average sugar content of the maple sap also varied, with a reported low of 1.5 °Brix, a high of 4.1 °Brix, and an average for all producers of 2.1 “Brix. Producer responses to questions concerning the purchase and sale of sap, and the purchase of syrup are presented in Table 6. Although only 10 percent of the Michigan producers reported buying sap in 1972, this is a larger proportion than the 4 percent for 14 maple producing states in 1963 (Taylor et a l ., 1967). On the other hand, Table 6.— Purchase and Sale of Sap, and Purchase of Syrup by Maple Producers, 1972. 1 ii ■ Purchase Sap Size of Operation (Tapholes) Yes Gallons Boughta Percent Number Sell Sap Purchase Syrup Yes Gallons Solda Percent Percent Number Percent No No Yes Percent Gallons Boughta Number No Percent 0-499 3 7 97 15 309 85 500-999 5 32 95 5 152 95 2 1 98 1000-1499 11 41 89 • 100 7 3 93 1500-1999 12 88 12 2000-2499 36 1,800 64 • • • • 100 9 52 91 3000-3499 40 2,240 60 * • • • 100 40 230 60 3500 + 14 3,571 86 14 214 86 29 26 71 90 7 145 93 7 15 93 Average 10 ? 423 + aAn average for the size class. • • « 22 88 • 100 • • • • ♦ 100 52 it is somewhat less than the 2 3 percent buying sap in New York (Smith, 1969). The reader will recall that the sample for the New York survey was not a random one. Also, three different geographical areas and three very different sap seasons are being compared. The 14-state survey and the Michigan survey are in agreement on one significant point: the proportion of producers buying sap increases with the size of the oper­ ation. This relationship was tested for the Michigan survey, and was found to be statistically significant at the 1 percent level. Not only are more of the larger producers buying sap, but they are buying more of it as is evident in Table 6. Producers with operations of 3,500 or more tapholes averaged buying 3,571 gallons of sap each in 19 72. The amount purchased per producer decreased directly with decreases in size down to 32 gallons of sap per pro­ ducer for operations in the 500-999 size class. one of the producers in the smallest size class holes) Although (0-499 tap- reported buying some sap, he did not specify the quantity purchased. Correlation analysis showed the direct relationship between size of the operation (in tapholes) and the amount of sap purchased to be statistically signifi­ cant at the 5 percent level. It is surprising to find that only 7 percent of the producers reported selling any sap in 1972, while 10 percent were purchasing sap. Smith (1969) also found that of those producers interviewed in New York in 1968, more were buying 53 sap (23 percent) than were selling (6 p ercent). Evidently in Michigan and perhaps elsewhere the producers who are selling sap are selling to more than one buyer. Or, as may also be the case, a disproportionate number of the producers selling sap did not return the Michigan survey questionnaire. Since it was found that the proportion of producers buying sap increased with size of the operation, it was reasoned that the proportion of producers selling sap would decrease with operation size. However, correlation analy­ sis failed to substantiate this hypothesis as the results were statistically non-significant. Fewer producers were purchasing syrup in 19 72 than were purchasing sap; 7 percent for the former as opposed to 10 percent for the latter. This 7 percent is also less than the 28 percent reported to be buying additional syrup in New York in 1968 (Smith, 1969). However, purchasers of sap and syrup tend to exhibit the same characteristics. In fact many of the producers who purchased sap also bought syrup. As was the case with sap, the proportion of pro­ ducers buying syrup increased with the size of the oper­ ation. This relationship was significant at the 1 percent level of testing. And, although there appears to be a tendency for the larger producers to buy larger volumes of syrup, results of a correlation analysis proved to be statistically non-significant. The vast majority (72 percent) of Michigan pro­ ducers did not, at the end of 1972, anticipate any changes 54 in sap production for the next five years. Producers planning to increase production between 1972 and 1977 account for another 17 percent of the total, while 3 per­ cent planned to decrease production, and the remaining 7 percent planned to go out of business trast, in 1965, (Table 7). In con­ 4 3 percent of the producers in Michigan's lower peninsula planned to maintain their present level of tapping for 1965-1975, 22 percent planned to increase tapping, and 35 percent planned to discontinue the operation (Nyland and Rudolph, 1970). Although the two studies are not directly comparable, a certain amount of comparison is inevitable. And surpris­ ingly, the two studies are in close agreement on the proportion of producers planning to increase sap production. The 19 72 value of 17 percent differs by only a few per­ centage points from the 22 percent of 1965. The real differences in the findings of the two lie in the percent­ age of producers planning to discontinue their operations. If the two studies had the same data base, with the only difference being that they were made seven years apart, then it would probably be appropriate to conclude that plans made in 1965 for discontinuing operations were proceeding on schedule. The 35 percent who planned to dis­ continue operations by 19 75 had been reduced to 7 percent in the first seven years of the ten year period. doubtedly, Un­ this is related to the two values, but there are other factors as well. Producers whose plans would be Table 7.— Producer Plans Concerning Maple Sap Production for 1973-1977, Size of Operation (Tapholes) NO Change Increase By Get Out Less Than 50 Percent 51 to 100 Percent Percent Percent 0-499 78 11 8 500-999 72 11 11 1000-1499 56 4 20 1500-1999 89 • • 11 2000-2499 63 * « 18 3000-3499 80 • • 20 • 3500 + 86 * • 14 • Average Note: 72 7 13 3 • Decrease By More Than 100 Percent • • 8 ■ • * • • More Than 50 Percent • • 3 3 « ■ 8 4 • ■ • • • « • * • * • • ■ « • » • • i • • ■ * • • • 9 2 Less Than 50 Percent 2 17 percent plan to expand. 10 percent plan to decrease production or go out of business. 2 9 1 56 reflected in the 1972 value of 7 percent and not in the 35 percent of the earlier survey have no doubt decided to go out of business since the 1965 survey. Aside from differ­ ences between the samples themselves, there is no clear explanation. Of the 7 percent of all producers planning to go out of the maple business between 1973 and 1977, none has an operation of more than 1,500 tapholes and usually less than 1,000 taps each. Thus, it is the smaller, probably submarginal producers who are discontinuing production. In contrast, it is the larger operations that are planning to expand. Overall, 17 percent of the producers are planning to expand, but, as can be seen in Table 7, the proportion planning expansion increases with size of the operation. This relationship was tested and proved to be statistically significant at the 10 percent level. Although the percentages in Table 7 are based on the total number of producers rather than the total number of taps, it appears that planned expansion will more than offset the planned contraction in sap production. Seventeen percent of the producers plan to expand, while 10 percent plan to decrease production or go out of business. When these values are changed to a taphole basis, it is found that this is indeed the case, and that among current pro­ ducers a net increase in sap production can be expected in Michigan between 1973 and 1977. The larger operations will take up the slack left by the smaller operations. This has 57 been the pattern of all agricultural production in the United States for the past thirty years or so. The more efficient get larger and the less efficient drop out of the picture. The reasons for this phenomenon should become quite clear, when the costs and returns of sap production are discussed. Producer plans concerning syrup production were almost exactly the same as those for sap production, with 72 percent planning no change, expand, 18 percent planning to 4 percent decreasing production, out of business. and 7 percent going Again it was the smaller producers who were going out of the maple business, ducers who were expanding. and the larger pro­ The relationship between size of operation and the proportion of producers planning expansion became, with the slight changes in plans between sap and syrup production, statistically significant at the 5 percent level. The tendency of Michigan producers to continue using the conventional bucket collection system is apparent in Table 9, where it can be seen that 85 percent of the tapholes in the state were on the bucket system in 1972. Although only 15 percent of the tapholes were on tubing, almost a third tubing. (31 percent) Of the 15 percent of the tapholes on tubing, more were vacuum pumped alone of the producers had some (8 percent) than were on gravity flow (7 p e r c e nt ), although the difference was not great (1 percent). Table 8.— Producer Plans Concerning Maple Syrup Production for 1973-1977. Size of Operation (Tapholes) NO Change Get Out Increase By Decrease By Percent Percent Less Than 50 Percent 51 to 100 Percent 0-499 85 12 • * 3 500-999 69 11 11 1000-1499 56 4 20 1500-1999 89 • • 11 2000-2499 63 • 18 9 * • . . 9 3000-3499 60 * • 40 ■ * ■ « • • • « 3500 + 86 • * 14 • * • * ■ * • • 72 7 12 3 3 2 2 Average Note: ft • More Than 100 Percent » • 8 • ft • Less Than 50 Percent • * « More Than 50 Percent « « 6 3 . . 8 4 . . * 18 percent plan to expand. 11 percent plan to decrease production or go out of business. • « * • 59 The proportion of tapholes on tubing systems or without vacuum) (Table 9). (with increased with the size of the operation In operations of less than 500 tapholes, only 5 percent of the tapholes were on tubing, but this increased to 68 percent on tubing for operations in the 4,000 to 4,499 size class. Operations larger than 4,500 tapholes utilized the bucket collection system exclusively. However, there were only four operations of this size in the sample. Table 9 also shows the tendency of Michigan pro­ ducers to favor gravity over the vacuum pump for small tubing operations, but to shift to vacuum pumping for larger installations. Not quite half (45 percent) of the producers in the survey had at some time used plastic tubing in their maple sap operation, including small try-it-and-see type kits (Table 10). The proportion of producers trying tubing increased with increases in the size of the operation, with only 18 percent of the producers in the smallest size class having tried tubing, while 71 percent of those in the largest size class had tried it at one time or another. Correlation analysis showed this relationship to be sta­ tistically significant at the 10 percent level of testing. Opinion was divided among producers on whether the advantages of plastic tubing outweigh the disadvantages. A glance at Table 11 shows that of the producers who had tried tubing, most (65 percent) thought the advantages out­ weighed the disadvantages. Producers who had not tried 60 Table 9.— Distribution of Tapholes by Sap Collection System 1972. Size of Operation (Tapholes) Buckets Tubing (Gravity) Tubing (Vacuum Pump) Percent Percent Percent 0-499 95 5 500-999 88 8 4 1000-1499 88 7 5 1500-1999 76 14 10 2000-2499 76 4 20 3000-3499 88 12 • 3500-3999 68 12 20 4000-4499 32 « • 68 5500-5999 100 • • • « 7000-7499 100 ■ ■ • « Average 85 7 • • • 8 61 Table 10.— Percentage of Maple Producers Who Have Tried Tubing by Size of Operation, 1972. Size of Operation (Tapholes) Percent 0-499 18 500-999 39 1000-1499 63 1500-1999 78 2000-2499 64 3000-3499 80 3500 + 71 Average 45 Table 11.— Do the Advantages of Plastic Tubing Outweigh the Disadvantages? Yes No No Response Percent Percent Percent Producers who had tried tubing 65 25 10 Producers who had not tried tubing 23 40 37 All producers 42 34 24 62 tubing disagreed. They were of the opinion that the dis­ advantages carried the greater weight. favored tubing. Overall, opinion Approximately 42 percent of all the producers thought that the advantages of tubing outweigh the disadvantages, 34 percent thought otherwise, and the remaining 2 4 percent did not respond to the question. Producer responses to the question "Could tubing be profitably employed in your operation?" were essentially the same as the responses to the question concerning the advantages and disadvantages of tubing. Those who had tried tubing thought it could be profitably employed in their operation, while those who had not tried tubing were of the opposite opinion. Again, when the responses of those who had not tried tubing were combined with those who had, more of the producers thought tubing could be profit­ ably employed in their operation otherwise (33 percent), answer the question (39 percent) than thought although 28 percent chose not to (Table 12). Table 12.— Could Tubing be Profitably Employed in Your Operation? Yes No No Response Percent Percent Percent Producers who had tried tubing 62 22 16 Producers who had not tried tubing 20 42 38 All producers 39 33 28 63 Although 39 percent of the producers think tubing could be profitably used in their operation, only 31 percent are using tubing. Evidently, 8 percent of the producers think it would be to their advantage to employ tubing in their operation, but for one reason or another have not done s o . Some producers were planning to change the relative proportion of buckets to tubing by 197 7, although most were not. Twenty-seven percent indicated plans for a change, but 73 percent liked things as they were the 27 percent planning a change, (Table 13). Of 25 percent were going toward more tubing, while only 2 percent chose to favor buckets. The Marketing of Maple Syrup Approximately one-half (51 percent) of the maple syrup producers in Michigan normally sell at least part of their syrup on the wholesale market, but most of the syrup is retailed. The marketing mix normally used by Michigan's producers is presented in Table 14. It can be seen that 49 percent of all producers sell all of their syrup on the retail market. This proportion decreases to 13 percent at a mix of 90 percent retail— 10 percent wholesale, and declines from there to 2 percent of the producers at 100 percent wholesale. This correlation proved to be statisti­ cally significant at the 10 percent level. 64 Table 13.— Any Plans to Change the Relative Proportion of Buckets to Tubing in the Next Five Years? Size of Operation (Tapholes) Yes No Percent Percent 0-499 5 95 500-999 18 82 1000-1499 39 61 1500-1999 33 67 2000-2499 44 56 3000-3499 25 75 3500 + 33 57 27 73 Average Not all of the producers responding to the survey produced syrup for sale on the retail and wholesale markets. Some produced maple syrup strictly for gifts and for their own use. Four percent of respondents are in this category, and virtually all have operations of less than 500 tapholes. When asked if they were able to dispose of their syrup at what they considered to be a "fair" price, Michigan producers responded as follows: Almost always 65 percent Usually 24 percent Sometimes 5 percent 65 Table 14.— Retail vs. Wholesale Marketing of Maple Syrup by Michigan Producers, 19 72. Marketing Mix Producers Number Percent 100 Percent Retail 65 49 90 Percent Retail10 Percent Wholesale 17 13 80 Percent Retail20 Percent Wholesale 2 70 Percent Retail30 Percent Wholesale 60 Percent Retail40 Percent Wholesale 50 Percent Retail50 Percent Wholesale 8 40 Percent Retail60 Percent Wholesale 4 30 Percent Retail70 Percent Wholesale 4 20 Percent Retail80 Percent Wholesale 10 Percent Retail90 Percent Wholesale 5 2 100 Percent Wholesale 2 2 Gift and Own Use 6 4 132 100 Total 66 Seldom 3 percent Practically never 2 percent Since 89 percent of the producers are in the "usually" or "almost always" categories, it might appear that there is no problem in selling syrup and getting a "fair" price for it, at least in the mind of the producer. But the 5 per­ cent in the "seldom" and "practically never" categories would disagree. Again, it is the smaller operations who are having these problems, as the 5 percent only included producers with less than 1,500 tapholes. In 1972 producers received an average of $8.10 for each gallon of syrup sold on the retail market, and $6.90 per gallon on the wholesale market Retail (Table 15). prices ranged from a low of $2.50 per gallon to a high of $14.00 per gallon. The low reported wholesale price was $4.00, while $10.00 was the high. Note that all types of wholesale and retail methods are included in these group­ ings . Although correlation analysis failed to show any correlation between size of the operation and the average wholesale price received, there is a correlation (statisti­ cally significant at the 1 percent level of testing) between operation size and the average retail price received. These results are not entirely unexpected. Size of the operation has little bearing on the price received whole­ sale, because the purchaser (wholesaler) usually establishes 67 Table 15.— The Average Price Received Per Gallon of Syrup in 1972 and a "Fair Price." Size of Operation {Tapholes) Average Price Received "Fair Price" Wholesale Retail Wholesale Retail Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars 0-499 6. 86 7. 71 6.94 8. 56 500-999 7.14 7. 97 7.68 8. 69 1000-1499 7.12 8. 42 7. 42 8. 96 1500-1999 7. 06 8. 44 8. 05 9.47 2000-2499 6. 17 7. 88 6. 92 8. 50 3000-3499 5. 07 8.65 6. 10 9. 17 3500 + 7.28 8. 86 8. 00 9.93 6.90 8. 10 7. 48 8.85 4.00 2. 50 5. 00 3. 00 10. 00 14. 00 10. 00 30. 00 Average Low High 68 the price to be paid, and, as the producer has little or no bargaining power, he has to accept this price if the sale is to be completed. This situation is reversed on the retail market for here the seller sets the price and the decision to buy or not to buy at the established price is made by the consumer. In general, larger producers command a higher retail price for their syrup than do those with the small operations. Evidently, the producers with the larger operations have a better product, advertise more heavily, and/or are more profit motivated in general than the latter. It is interesting to note that although 89 percent of the producers said they were "usually" or "almost always" able to dispose of their syrup at a "fair" price, when asked what they considered to be a "fair" price, in every instance they quoted a price above the one actually received in 1972 (Table 15). And one producer stated that considering all the work involved, indeed "fair." $30 per gallon was Perhaps the "fair price" of Table 15 could be looked at as a "fairer" fair price. Another point of interest is that in 1972 the pro­ ducers with the larger operations were already averaging retail prices above those thought to be fair by the pro­ ducers with the smallest operations. The average retail price received in 1972 by producers with operations in the 3,500 taps and over size class was $8.86 per gallon, while $8.56 per gallon was considered to be a "fair price" by 69 the average producer in the 0-499 taphole class. One may get the impression from Table 15 that a correlation exists between the retail "fair price" and the size of the oper­ ation. However, this relationship proved to be statisti­ cally nonsignificant as did the relationship between the wholesale "fair price" and operation size. Labor and Maple Sap Production Labor used in the production of maple sap comes from three sources: the producer and his immediate family, full-time employees, and seasonal employees. the producers' Producers, immediate families, and full-time employees comprised 59 percent of the labor force employed in 1972 in sap production with the bucket system contrast, (Table 16). In 7 8 percent of the labor force for tubing systems came from these sources. Seasonal employees accounted for 41 percent of the labor force when buckets were used, 22 percent with tubing. and Obviously, producers using the tubing collection system can make better use of their own, their families', and their full-time e m p l o ye es ' time than those using the bucket system. Consequently, the former have to hire less seasonal labor than do the latter. This conclusion is supported by Table 17, where it is shown that in 1972, producers using the tubing system hired an average of .7 seasonal workers, while those on buckets hired 1.8 seasonal workers. The difference in 70 Table 16.— Source of Maple Sap Production Labor Force by Collection System, 1972. Bucket System Tubing System Labor Source Number of Workers Percent Number of Workers Percent 294 56 91 71 Full-time employees 16 3 9 7 Seasonal employees 215 41 28 22 Total 525 100 128 100 The producer and his immediate family of Seasonal Workers by Collection Table 17.— Average Number < System and Size of Operation, 1972. Size of Operation (Tapholes) Bucket System Tubing System 0-499 .3 .1 500-999 1.0 1. 2 1000-1499 2.5 ■ 1500-1999 1. 6 .3 2000-2499 3.2 1. 5 2500-2999 * 1.0 3000-3499 2.0 • • 3500 + 6.2 • • Average • 1. 8 • .7 71 these two means is statistically significant at the .1 per­ cent level of testing. As would be expected, the information in Table 17 indicates a positive correlation between the number of seasonal workers employed for sap production and the size of the operation. The larger the operation, the greater the number of seasonal workers. Both bucket and tubing systems exhibited this relationship, which proved to be statistically significant at the 1 percent level in both cases. Michigan producers were divided in 19 72 on whether there existed an adequate supply of labor for maple sap production at wage rates they could afford. differences are not great, more Although the (52 percent) thought the supply inadequate than thought otherwise. However, even though the majority seem to be encountering difficulty in finding labor, only 5 percent of all producers found it necessary to guarantee their workers a specific number of hours per day or per week to have sufficient labor on hand when it was needed. The other 9 5 percent did not find it necessary to do this. The wage rate that producers could afford must have been approximately $2.00 per hour in 1972, as the average hourly rate of pay for all seasonal employees in that year was $1.97. Seasonal employees who worked with the tubing collection system received a slightly higher wage rate than did their counterparts on buckets. The former received an 72 average of $2.14 for each hour of labor, while the average for the latter was $1.94 per hour. However, this differ­ ence was not significant statistically, so the combined average of $1.97 is probably an adequate representation of the average wage rate for seasonal sap production workers in Michigan in 1972. Also, there was no evidence of a correlation between the size of the operation and the hourly wage of the seasonal employees. Although some maple syrup producers seem to be blessed with an adequate supply of seasonal workers and enjoy as well a mutually beneficial working relationship with their employees, many producers do not have these experiences. For this latter group, labor is definitely a problem. A composite picture of the labor problem as it exists in Michigan is provided by the producers themselves. The problem as producers responding to the survey see it is: to find seasonal help that is willing to work under the weather conditions found during the sap season. The help must respond on short notice and be available when the sap is running, not just on Saturday afternoons. In addition, the help must be willing to take care of the equipment and accept a 11fair" w a g e . After this has all been done the problem remains of getting them to stay on and finish out the season. 73 Respondents to the survey have also suggested some possible solutions to the "labor problem.11 These solutions are listed below. 1. Quit. 2. Do-it-all yourself. 3. Maintain as efficient an operation as possible. 4. Mechanize where practical. 5. Replace grown men with high school students. 6. Employ transient labor. 7. Utilize more tubing and less buckets. 8. Pay a bonus to workers completing the season. In this writer's view, possible solutions 3, 4, 7, and 8 have considerable merit. Costs and Returns for Maple Sap Production in Michigan Predicting the Total Investment in Sap Production Equipment Two questions that potential maple sap producers should ask are: "What will my total investment in sap pro­ duction equipment be, assuming I have to start from scratch and buy all new equipment?" And, "Which requires the lesser capital investment for the same number of tapholes, buckets or tubing?" To answer these questions the total equipment investment was computed for each operation that cooperated in the cost study under the assumptions described earlier 74 and in the Appendix. Then, these two sets of data, one set for buckets and one set for tubing, were fitted to the model: V = eo + where Y = the total equipment investment X = the number of tapholes. The prediction equation obtained from fitting this model for the bucket collection system was: Y = 534.75 + 2.9033 X The correlation coefficient for the equation is 0.994. Statistically speaking, the probability of this relationship occurring by chance was less than 1 percent. For tubing, the prediction equation was: Y = 203.97 + 1.7872 X with a correlation coefficient of 0.996. Again, this relationship is statistically significant at the 1 percent level of testing. An analysis of covariance showed a significant difference (at the .1 percent level) in both slope and elevation of the two regression lines predicted by these equations. 75 An example will clarify the use of the prediction equations and the differences that exist between the two collection systems in the total investment in sap pro­ duction equipment. Assuming an operation of 1,000 tapholes, the total equipment investment for a bucket system is $534.75 + $2.9033 (1,000) or $3,438.05. For tubing, the investment in equipment for the same number of tapholes is $1,991.17 ($203.97 + $1.7872 (1,000)). The difference in equipment investment between the two systems is consider­ able ($1,447) and is of statistical significance. And, as comparable differences exist for all sizes of operations within the limits of this study, it is safe to conclude that the investment in equipment for a given sap production operation is less for a tubing system than it is for a bucket system. Labor Input and Its Cost The detailed daily records of the study's cooper­ ators show a considerable (39 percent) for tubing systems over buckets. savings in labor Tubing operations averaged for the two years of data collection 7.7 minutes of labor time per tap for the total sap production process from time spent in preparation through the cleaning and storage of / » the equipment. For bucket operations, the average labor time per tap was 12.7 minutes (Table 18). The difference between these two means is significant at the 1 percent level. 76 Table 18.— Average Annual Labor Time for Sap Production by Activity. Labor Time Per Tap Activity Preparation Bucket System Tubing System Minutes Percent Minutes Percent .1 1 .2 2 1.1 9 1.0 14 1. 3 10 3.2 42 .2 2 .2 3 2.6 21 4.4 59 7.6 . 1 60 1 7. 7 Setup Tapping Layout and Installation Collection Tank Placement Subtotal Gathering Collection Maintenance Subtotal * * • .8 10 61 .8 10 1.0 .2 1.1 8 2 8 1.3 .2 .8 17 3 10 2.3 18 2. 3 30 12. 7 101 7.7 101 Take-Down Collection System Collection Tanks Cleaning and Storage Subtotal Totals Average Cost Per Tap @ $2.12 per Houra $.45 $.27 a$2.00 per hour plus 5.85 percent for Social Security. ■ 77 The average annual labor time per tap reported for tubing is in very close agreement with the findings of Morrow (1961, 1972). In 1961 he estimated that it took about 8 minutes of labor per taphole per year to install, maintain, take down, and clean a plastic tubing system. The average annual labor per taphole reported by him for a seven year period (1966— 1972) for tubing installations at Heaven Hill and the Arnot Forest was 7 and 9 minutes, respectively. As expected, the big difference in labor inputs between the two systems occurred during the gathering phase of the operation. For this activity, bucket operations averaged 7.7 minutes of labor time per taphole annually. i This was 61 percent of the total labor input for the bucket operation and was equal to the average total labor input for the tubing operations. With the bucket system, it takes as long to gather sap as it does to complete, with an equivalent tubing system, the total sap production process from preparation through setup and gathering to cleaning and storage of the equipment. The bucket system is favored in the setup phase of the sap production process. Where the annual average is 4.4 minutes of labor per taphole for tubing systems, bucket systems averaged 2.6 minutes. the same for both systems Tapping time is essentially (1.1 vs. 1.0 minutes), but it takes about two and one-half times as long to layout and install the tubing system (3.2 minutes) as it does to 78 layout and hang the buckets (1.3 minutes). Setting up the system is the most time consuming phase of sap collection with tubing, as it requires about 59 percent of the total labor inputs. Labor time required to take down the two sap col­ lection systems is approximately the same regardless of the system used (2.3 minutes per taphole per year in both cases), and there is very little differences in preparation time (.1 minute for buckets vs. .2 minutes for tubing). It does take longer to setup the tubing system as noted above, but this slight disadvantage is more than offset by the con­ siderable labor savings that occur during the actual sap gathering itself. The net effect of this labor savings can be seen by comparing the total sap production labor cost for a 1,000-taphole operation on buckets and on tubing. Using the average cost per tap data from Table 18 ($.45 for buckets and $.27 for tubing), the average annual labor cost for the 1,000 taphole bucket operation in our example is $450, while it is $270 for 1,000 tapholes of tubing. The difference, $180, represents a labor cost savings of 67 percent for the tubing operation ($180/$270). In terms of labor input and cost, tubing collection systems are defi­ nitely the more efficient of the two. Bucket and Tubing Annual Costs Since bucket collection systems require larger investments in equipment and have higher labor costs than 79 do tubing systems of the same size, it would not be a surprise to find that the average total annual cost of producing maple sap is greater for buckets than for tubing. This is indeed the case, as indicated by data in Table 19. For the 20 bucket operations, total annual costs without the workmen's compensation premium averaged $1.13 per taphole, while the average for 21 tubing operations was $.78. Both these values are increased by $.13 per tap when the workmen's compensation premium is added, becoming $1.26 and $.91, respectively. These costs are in agreement with those of other researchers. Kearl (1970) reported an average cost for sap production for 64 producers in New York in 1969 of $.88 per taphole. bined. This was for bucket and tubing operations com­ In the same study he found that for 31 producers who used buckets only and 12 who used tubing only, the average annual costs were $1.00 per tap for buckets and $1.02 for tubing. Morrow (1972) found that annual costs for the 3,800 taphole aerial tubing installation at Heaven Hill averaged $.89 per tap over a seven-year period (1966- 1972), while at the Arnot Forest during the same period, a 1,400-tap tubing operation averaged $1.17 per taphole. The largest cost item for the bucket system is labor at $.45 per taphole, which— disregarding the work­ men's compensation minimum premium— is 40 percent of the total cost of sap production. Adding the workmen's com­ pensation premium increases this cost by $.13, to $.58 per Table 19.— Average Total Annual Cost Per Taphole by Collection System. Bucket System Cost Items Without Workmen's Compensation Dollars Percent Tubing System With Workmen1s Compensation Dollars Percent Without Workmen's Compensation Dollars Percent With Workmen1s Compensation Dollars Percent Fixed Equipment .44 39 .44 35 .33 42 33 36 Equipment Operation and Maintenance .08 7 .08 6 .02 3 02 2 Labor .45 40 .58 46 .27 35 40 44 Material Expenses .02 Taphole Rental .10 9 .10 8 .10 13 ,10 11 Management .04 4 .04 3 .04 5 ,04 4 1.13 101 1.26 100 .78 101 91 99 Total 02 .02 .02 81 tap or 4 6 percent of the total cost. The second largest cost item for buckets is the annual cost of equipment ownership, which at $.44 per tap is 39 percent of the total cost without the workmen's compensation premium and 35 per­ cent with it. These two major costs are followed in importance by taphole rental costs operation and maintenance costs costs ($.04 per tap), ($.10 per tap), equipment ($.08 per tap), management and material expenses ($.02 per tap). The workmen's compensation premium takes on added significance in the cost of sap production with the tubing collection system. If the premium is not paid, the cost of owning the equipment is the largest factor in sap pro­ duction, accounting at $.33 per taphole for 42 percent of the total cost. Labor, then, is the second largest item with 35 percent of the cost at $.27 per tap. hand, On the other if the workmen's compensation premium is paid, the situation is reversed, and labor becomes the largest cost item at $.40 per taphole and 44 percent of the cost, while the fixed equipment cost remains at $.33 per taphole (36 percent of the cost). Following the fixed equipment and labor costs are taphole rental costs ($.10 per tap), management costs ($.04 per tap), material expenses ($.02 per tap), equipment operation and maintenance costs and ($.02 per tap). Note that the cost of operating and maintaining equipment is approximately $.06 less per taphole for tubing systems ($.02) than for bucket systems ($.08). This cost 82 differential reflects the savings to be realized from operating and maintaining a vacuum pump in lieu of running a farm tractor. Total, Average Total, and Marginal Costs Although the average total annual cost data in Table 19 quite adequately show where the differences lie with respect to the costs of sap production with the two basic systems, these data are only averages which do not express the relationship that exists between the cost of sap production and the number of tapholes. This relation­ ship is an important one, to which much of this study has been devoted. The total cost of sap production for bucket col­ lection systems that avoid paying the minimum workmen* s compensation premium is predicted by the following equation: TC = 1090.41 - .351404 X + + {.301954 * 10“ 3)X2 (.568337 x 10“ 7 )X3 where TC = total cost X = the number of tapholes. If the workmen's compensation premium is included, fixed costs are increased while variable costs are un­ changed. This is reflected in the equation by an increase 83 in the constant term of $183 with the rest of the coeffi­ cients remaining the same. TC = 1 2 7 3 . 4 1 - . 351404X + Thus, (.30 1954 x 10~3)X 2 + (.56 8337 x 10~7 )X 3 These equations were obtained by the least squares computational procedures described earlier. Both equations have multiple correlation coefficients of .947, and are statistically significant at the 1 percent level. The curves generated by these equations are presented in Figure 2 along with the observed values. The total cost curves for tubing operations differ from those of buckets and fit their observed data somewhat better as can be seen in Figure 3. An analysis of co- variance showed that the difference between the bucket and tubing total cost curves was statistically significant at the .1 percent level. And, the .981 multiple correlation coefficient for tubing betters the .947 for buckets, probably because there is less variation in total cost aLLributable to differences in sap yields among tubing operations than is the case with buckets. The prediction equation for tubing systems without the workmen's compensation premium is: TC = 1 2 6 . 4 4 6 + . 624323X - (.33 9952 where TC = total cost X = number of tapholes. x ic f )X + (.13 3916 x io )X 4000 With Workmen's Compensation 3800 3600 3400 TC - 1273.41 - .351404X + (.301954 X 10“3) X2 + (.568337 x 10*7) X3 R * .947 3200 3000 2800 2600 2400 2200 2000 1800 1600 Without Workmen's Compensation 1400 TC - 1090.41 - .351404X + (.301954 x 10-3) x 2 + (.568337 x 10"7> X3 1200 1000 R 800 600 J. > -T* > O > O Fig. 1 0> O O 2. O O 1 1. 1 1 1 ro 1 ro ro O • • 947 t ro no o> CD o O o o O o o o o o o o o o Tapholes Total Cost Curves for Bucket o o o i ro o> o o i ro CD O O 1 04 O O o Operations With Workman's Compensation TC - 309.446 + . 824323X - (.33952 x 10"3>X2 + (. 133916 x 10-6) x3 2800 R - .981 2600 2400 2200 2000 1800 16 0 0 1400 1200 Without Workmens Compensation 1000 800 TC - 126.446 + .824323X - (.339952 x 10~3) x2 + (. 133916 x 10- 6) X3 600 400 2 00 200 Fig. o q 3. O O oo — — — — — r° j° i° 1° o o ro -t* o > o o o r o 4 ^ o i o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Tapholes Total Cost Curves for Tubing Operations. 86 As before, the same equation with the workmen's compensation premium i s : TC = 3 0 9 . 4 4 6 + .824323X - (.33 9952 x 10~3)X 2 + (.133916 * 10” 6 ) X 3 Average total cost per taphole is obtained by dividing total cost by the number of tapholes. The cost curve so obtained is U-shaped— it decreases, reaches a minimum, and then increases. Producers are able to achieve economies of scale by spreading fixed costs over a larger number of tapholes to lower the average total cost, but only to a point. Beyond a certain number of tapholes, ATC starts rising again and diseconomies of scale are evident. For bucket operations without the workmen's com­ pensation premium, minimum ATC is approximately $.96 at 1,515 tapholes (Figure 4). Adding workmen's compensation shifts the ATC curve upward and to the right so that the minimum is now $1.07 at 1,620 tapholes. The ATC curve for tubing operations is flatter than that for buckets, and has a lower minimum value. Without workmen's compensation, minimum ATC occurs at 1,4 85 tapholes and is $.70 (Figure 5). This is $.26 less than the compar­ able minimum value for buckets. If the workmen's compen­ sation premium is paid, minimum ATC is $.82 at 1,680 tapholes . Marginal cost is unaffected by changes in fixed cost such as the addition of the workmen's compensation minimum premium. Rather, marginal cost is a change in 87 2.10 2.00 1.90 1.80 • A TC With Workmen's ( Compensation MC 1.70 1.60 1.50 1.40 Dollars 1.30 1.20 X ATC Without Workmen's Compensation 1.10 1620 1.00 .9 0 .8 0 .70 1515 .6 0 .3 0 .20 ro oo ro T a p h o ie s Fig. 4. Average Total Cost and Marginal Cost Curves for Bucket Operations. 88 2 .4 0 ■ 2.3 0 - 2.2 0 - 2.1 0 2 .00 1 .9 0 - 1 .8 0 - ATC With Workmen's Compensation D o llars 1.7 0 1.60 - 1.50 - 1.40 - 1.30 1.2 0 - l.l 0 1.00 - A TC .9 0 .80 - .70 - .60 - • Without Workmen's Compensation 1680 1485 .5 0 .40 - .3 O .2 0 . o j N o o L X X ^ OJ 00 I J - - L - o o o q To OO O o o o o o o 1 — « L J — « ro 4 L r4 o a> o O o o o o o L jo J o j T a p h o le s Fig. 5. Average Total Cost and Marginal Cost Curves for Tubing Operations. 89 total cost that accompanies a change in the number of tapholes. Marginal cost intersects average total cost at the latter1s minimum, and is found by taking the first deriva­ tive of the total cost function. Since the prediction equation for the total cost curve for bucket operations (without workmen's compensation) TC = 1 0 9 0 . 4 1 - . 351404X + marginal cost for buckets pensation) (.30 1954 is x 10” 3 )X 2 + (.56 8337 x 10"7)X 3 (with and without workmen's com­ is MC = “ T “ ! d(X) = - .351404 + (.60 3908 x 10~ 3)X + (.17 0501 x l o ” 6 ) X2 For tubing operations with and without workmen's compen­ sation, marginal cost is represented by the following equation: MC = .824323 - (.679903 x 10~3)X + (.401749 x 10-6)X2 The marginal cost curves are shown in Figures 4 and 5 along with the appropriate ATC curve. A tabular presentation of total, average total, and marginal costs for both collection systems is given in Table 20. Profitability of Maple Sap Production The costs of maple sap production are important in delineating the efficiencies of the two basic sap collection systems. However, if costs alone are considered, the optimum size of operation and the profit to be made from Table 20.— Cost Relationships in Dollars. Total Cost With Workmen1s Compensation Without Workmen's Compensation Number of Tapholes Buckets 200 Average Total Cost . . Tubing 279 Buckets . ■ With Workmen's Compensation Without Workmen's Compensation Tubing 462 Buckets . . Tubing 1.39 Buckets • Tubing Marginal Cost Buckets Tubing ■ 2.31 • • .70 400 1,002 410 1,185 593 2.50 1.03 2.96 1.48 • * .62 600 1,001 528 1,184 711 1.67 .88 1.97 1.18 .07 .56 800 1,032 635 1,215 818 1.29 .79 1.52 1.02 .24 .54 1,000 1,098 745 1,281 928 1.10 .74 1.28 .93 .42 .55 1,200 1,202 858 1,385 1,041 1.00 .71 1.15 .87 .62 .59 1,400 1,346 982 1,529 1,165 .96 .70 1.09 .83 .83 .66 1,600 1,534 1,124 1,717 1,307 .96 .70 1.07 .82 1.05 .76 1,800 1,768 1,290 1,951 1,473 .98 .72 1.08 .82 1.29 .90 2,000 2,050 1,487 2,233 1,670 1.03 .74 1.12 .83 1.54 1.07 2,200 2,384 1,721 2,567 1,904 1.08 .78 1.17 .87 1.80 1.27 2,400 2,772 1,998 2,955 2,181 1.15 .83 1.23 .91 2.08 1.51 2,600 3,216 2,325 3,399 2,508 1.24 .89 1. 31 .96 2.37 1.77 2,800 3,721 2,709 3,904 2,892 1.33 .97 1.39 1.03 2.68 2.07 3,000 3,156 3,339 1.05 , , 1.11 , , 2.40 ID O 91 producing maple sap cannot be determined. Rather, costs and returns must be considered together if profit maximi­ zation is important, and most producers would undoubtedly feel that it is. Returns from sap production are generally dependent upon two factors: the sap. sap yield per taphole and sweetness of Assuming an average of 20 gallons of sap per tap- hole, an average Brix value of 1.50 and a sap value of $.05 per gallon, the average revenue per taphole is $1.00 (20 * $.05). Marginal revenue (the change in total revenue that accompanies a change in the number of tapholes) is also equal to $1.00, and in this instance marginal revenue and average revenue are one and the same. Once marginal revenue has been estimated, it is a relatively simple procedure to determine what has been termed here as marginal size. Marginal size is the size of the maple sap operation in number of tapholes at which marginal revenue is equal to marginal cost. Another term for the same phenomenon might be optimum size, because it is at this equilibrium point where profits are at a maximum or losses at a minimum. An illustration of the graphical procedure for determining marginal size is presented in Figure 6. Although the marginal cost and average total cost curves of tubing operations (without workmen's compensation) are used in this example, the same principles apply to tubing oper­ ations with workmen's compensation and bucket operations 92 2.10 2.00 1.90 1.80 1.70 1.60 1.50 1.40 Dollars 130 1.20 1.10 IJOO ATC S O .80 .70 .60 .50 .40 .20 o r Jo S L J L X X J L X 4* 00 — — — — — 2 X o O i >O X . O ^ C D O O O ^ O O O O O O O O O O X ro X M J N A I W O) I I IN) w CD o w o o o o o o o O O O O O O Tapholes Fig. 6. Cost and Revenue Relationships, Tubing Operations (Without Workmen's Compensation). 93 with and without the premium. of $.90 For a marginal revenue value (MR2 in Figure 6), operations of l r795 tapholes earn a larger profit than operations of any other size, as determined on the horizontal axis at the intersection of the M R 2 and MC curves. The break-even point is normally defined as the zero profit point or the point where total cost equals total revenue. It can also be determined from average costs and revenues such as those in Figure 6. Here, the break-even point for an average revenue of $.90 per taphole occurs at the intersection of the M R 2 and ATC curves, since marginal and average revenues are equal. Under these conditions, an operation of 565 tapholes would be required to break even. A decrease in marginal and average revenue to $.70 (10 gallons of sap per tap at $.07 per gallon for 2.0 °Brix sap) brings up an interesting point. At 1,485 tapholes average revenue, marginal revenue, marginal cost, and average total cost are all in equilibrium and the break­ even point and marginal size are one and the same. This is the one condition under which minimum cost per taphole (minimum ATC) indicates maximum profits which are in this case nonexistent. But, looking at the other side, no losses are suffered either. A further decrease in average and marginal revenue to $.55 (MR4 in Figure 6) makes it impossible for any operation large or small to return a profit. Total costs always exceed total revenues, so there is no break-even 94 point. Marginal size can still be determined from the intersection of the MR^ and the MC curves. However, marginal size is no longer an indicator of maximum profits, it is, rather, the only size short of zero tapholes at which minimum losses are incurred. In our example, marginal size is 1,025 tapholes. An increase of only $.10 per gallon in the price paid for maple sap has a significant effect on both break­ even size and marginal size, the former is lowered, while the latter is increased. Starting with a price of $.09 per gallon for 2.5 °Brix sap, and assuming an average yield of 10 gallons per tap, average and marginal revenue is $.90 (MR^ in Figure 6). The break-even size for this price and yield is 565 tapholes, and marginal size is 1,795 tapholes. If the price is increased to $.10 per gallon for the same yield and sugar concentration, average and marginal revenue is increased to $1.00 (MR^). Now, break-even size is 425 tapholes and marginal size is 1,920 tapholes. With this $.01 per gallon increase in price, the break-even size has been lowered by 140 tapholes and the marginal size increased by 125 tapholes. Producers in the 425 to 565 taphole range can now obtain a profit, where they could not before the price increase, and operators who are interested in maximizing profits are stimulated to increase the size of their operation to the larger marginal size. Theoretically at least, the result of this price increase should be a short-run increase in the supply of sap. Producers who 95 want to buy more sap and operators of central evaporators would do well to keep this relationship in mind. Tables 21 and 22 have been constructed to present break-even sizes, marginal sizes, and net returns for four levels of output and four Brix values for the two sap collection systems with and without workmen's compensation insurance. Naturally, because costs are lower, the lowest break-even size, the largest marginal size, and the greatest net returns are achieved with tubing operations. And it goes without saying that the higher the yield and the sweeter the sap, the greater the return regardless of the collection system employed. With this range of sap yield and sugar concentration values, bucket operations (without workmen's compensation) do not break-even with yields of 5 gallons of sap per taphole. To break-even at 10 gallons of sap per tap requires 3.0 °Brix sap, while 2.0 per tap. At 20 gallons sap is sufficient at 15 gallons per tap, a Brix value of 1.5° is adequate to break-even. Tubing operations (without workmen's compensation) cannot break-even with 5 gallons of sap per taphole either. However, in general, tubing operations can break-even with lower yields of sap and/or lower Brix values than can bucket operations. At 10 gallons of sap per tap, tubing operations can break-even with 2.0° sap, whereas buckets require a 3.0° reading. At 1.5 “Brix, tubing operations can point with yields of 15 gallons reach the break-even Table 21.— Break-even Size, Marginal Size, and Net Return by Sap Yields and Sugar Content, Bucket Operations. Net Return at the Margin Break-even Size Sap Yields and Sugar Content Marginal Revenue3 Without Workmen's Compensation With Workmen1s Compensation Marginal Sizeb Collars Tapholes Tapholes Tapholes *** 810 920 1,030 1,130 Without Workmen's Compensation Dollars Net Return Per Tap at the Margin With Workmen's Compensation Without Workmen1s Compensation With Workmen's Compensation Dollars Dollars Dollars -832 -745 -647 -539 -1,015 -928 -830 -722 -1.03 -.81 -.63 -.48 -1.25 -1.01 -.81 -.64 -595 -359 -84 277 -778 -542 -267 44 -.35 -.28 -.06 .17 -.72 -.42 -.18 .03 5 Gallons Per Tap 1.5 2.0 2,5 3.0 "Brix "Brix "Brix "Brix (50 (70 (90 (lit) .25 .35 .45 .55 **• **• 10 Gallons Per Tap 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 "Brix "Brix "Brix "Brix .50 .70 .90 1.10 *•* *** **• 995 1,365 1,080 1,280 1,465 1,640 .75 1.05 1.35 1.65 *** 1,080 755 605 *** *** 930 725 1,325 1,600 1,850 2,085 -293 146 664 1,255 -476 -37 481 1,072 -.22 .09 .36 .60 -.36 -.02 .26 .51 1.00 1.40 1.80 2.20 1,205 725 555 455 •** 885 660 535 1,555 1,890 2,200 2,485 67 757 1,576 2,513 -116 574 1,393 2,330 .04 .40 .72 1.01 -.07 .30 .63 .94 *** *** *** 15 Gallons Per Tap 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 "Brix "Brix "Brix "Brix 20 Gallons Per Tap 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 "Brix "Brix "Brix "Brix aMarginal revenue (also average revenue) is the price per jallon times the number of gallons per tap, ^Size at which marginal cost = marginal revenue. c***— indicates that the break-even point will never be reached (total cost is always greater than total revenue). Table 22.— Break-even Size, Marginal Size, and Net Return by Sap Yields and Sugar Content, Tubing Operations. Net Return at the Margin Break-even Size Sap Yields and Sugar Content Marginal Revenue3 Without Workmen1s Compensation With Workmen* s Compensation Marginal Sizeb Dollars Tapholes Tapholes Tapholes Without Workmen’s Compensation Dollars Net Return Per Tap at the Margin With Workmen's Compensation Dollars Without Workmen's Compensation Dollars With Workmen's Compensation Dollars 5 Gallons Per Tap 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 "Brix "Brix "Brix "Brix CSC) {70 (9C) (114) .25 .35 .45 .55 *** *•* *•* • ** * #* ()d « • tt* 1,025 , , * , -195 *** ** * ()d 1,485 1,795 2,030 0 330 714 -183 147 531 760 470 33S 1,575 1,980 2,270 2,510 77 614 1,252 1,970 -106 431 1,069 1,787 .05 .31 .55 .78 -.07 .22 .47 .71 845 445 290 215 1,920 2,310 2,620 2,880 516 1,367 2,355 3,456 333 1,184 2,172 3,273 .27 .59 .90 1.20 .17 .51 .83 1.14 od ♦ « •* * # * a -378 -.19 -.37 0 .18 .35 -.12 .08 .26 * t 10 Gallons Per Tap 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 "Brix "Brix 'Brix "Brix • ** .50 .70 .90 1.10 1,48E 565 335 .75 1.05 1.35 1.65 9 70 380 215 145 1.00 1.40 1.80 2.20 425 200 125 90 1,080 690 15 Gallons Per Tap 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 "Brix "Brix "Brix "Brix *** 20 Gallons Per Tap 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 "Brix "Brix "Brix "Brix Margi n a l revenue (also average revenue) is the price per gallon times the number of gallons per tap. bSize at which marginal cost = marginal revenue. c***— indicates that the break-even point will never be reached (total cost is always greater than total revenue). ^Marginal size cannot be detemined. MC always exceeds MR, 98 per tap, while buckets require 20 gallons per tap for sap of the same sugar content. Adding the workmen's compensation premium has the effect of increasing the break-even point for both bucket and tubing operations. However, the insurance premium has no effect on marginal size as marginal cost and marginal revenue are unchanged. The minimum premium does reduce the amount of profit or increase the loss by $183. As has been point out by other researchers, greater sap yields can be achieved with a tubing system under a vacuum than can be obtained with buckets. This makes tubing look even better as the higher yields mean higher profits. However, higher yields do not always occur with tubing under field conditions, as this study has shown. While it was not the purpose of this study to compare actual sap yields between bucket and tubing systems, in that vacuum tubing systems have been reported as obtaining higher sap yields, the question may be raised as to why results of this nature were not obtained in this study. Actual sap yield differences between buckets and tubing favored buckets in 1972 and were not significantly different for the 197 3 season, although we should have expected yields from tubing to be significantly higher. Some reasons for this lack of yield increase may be explored. 1. These include: Failure to properly install tubing in accordance with suggested guidelines. 99 2. Insufficient vacuum supply due to inadequate pump capacity. 3. Failure to regularly check and maintain the system. Up to a point, the maple sap producer can accept lower yields with tubing should they occur, because of the lower production costs with this collection system. For example, assuming a 1,6 25 taphole bucket operation that pays the workmen's compensation premium and averages 12 gallons of sap per taphole valued at $.09 per gallon annual profit is $11.40. (2.5 °Brix), A tubing operation of the same size and under the same insurance, yield, and price assumptions shows a net return of $387.79 per year. Reducing the yield to 10 gallons of sap per tap, with all other assumptions unchanged, results in an annual profit of $95.29 for this tubing operation. It is obvious that even with the 2 gallon per tap lower yield, the tubing operation still earns the greater return. SUMMARY A study was conducted to identify characteristics, attitudes, plans, and problems of Michigan's maple syrup producers, and to delineate under Michigan conditions costs and returns for maple sap production with the two basic sap collection systems networks). (buckets and vacuum pumped plastic tubing Data for the first part of the study were obtained by mailing a questionnaire to all maple producers in the state for which a mailing address could be obtained. For the second part, 14 operators of 17 separate Michigan sugarbushes were recruited as cooperators for the 1972 maple season, with this number expanded to 19 operators and 24 sugarbushes in 1973. Approximately one-half of the cooperators utilized the bucket collection system, while the others employed tubing. The operations ranged in size from 50 0 to 2,6 85 tapholes for bucket systems and 300 to 2,850 tapholes for tubing. After recruitment each cooperator was interviewed concerning his maple operation, and an inventory taken of each operation's sap production equipment. Labor inputs and power usage were recorded throughout each of the two 100 101 seasons by the cooperators on standardized time and cost record-keeping forms. activity: Labor inputs were separated by work preparation, set-up, sap gathering, and take down. The equipment inventory was used to prepare a standard list of equipment for both collection systems. Then, annual equipment cost and equipment operation and maintenance costs were computed. Other sap production costs calculated included labor, materials, taphole rental, and management. The sum of all cost items was the total cost of sap production. Analytical techniques employed in the study in­ cluded T-tests, linear correlation analysis, multiple regression analysis, analysis of covariance, break-even analysis, and marginal analysis. Producer Survey Of the 140 active producers of maple products who constituted the 1972 survey sample, 56 percent listed agriculture as their principal occupation, employed outside of agriculture, retired. 34 percent were and 10 percent were The average producer had been making syrup at the same location for 2 3 years. Moreover, a disproportionate number of the producers appeared to be of an advanced age, as 30 percent were retired or had been producing for forty or more years. Ninety-six percent of the respondents 102 produced both sap and syrup in 1972, and operations of 1,000 tapholes or less predominated. In 1972, 82 percent of the tapholes were drilled in trees owned by the producers. Producers favored the bucket collection system for 85 percent of their tappable resource, tubing with vacuum pump for 8 percent, and gravity flow tubing for the remaining 7 percent. The factor listed most often by the producers as limiting the number of tapholes was a lack of time to do more tapping. Lack of labor was the second most frequently mentioned factor. Only 10 percent of the producers reported buying any sap in 1972, while 7 percent sold sap, and 7 percent purchased syrup. Most purchasing of sap and syrup was done by the larger producers. It was also the larger producers who planned to increase their production of sap and syrup between 1972 and 1977, although only 17 and 18 percent, respectively, of all producers planned to do this. Ten p e r ­ cent of the producers planned to decrease production or go out of business over this five-year period, but the vast majority, 72 percent, anticipated no production changes. Producers who had tried plastic tubing networks by 1972 were in the minority (45 percent of total). But the majority of those who had tried tubing thought its advan­ tages outweighed the disadvantages and that tubing could be profitably employed in their own operation. Opinion among producers who had not tried tubing ran counter to that of those who had. Nevertheless, 25 percent of the producers 103 were planning to shift their bucket to tubing ratio toward more tubing and less buc k et s. The majority (51 percent) of the producers reported that they normally sell at least part of their syrup on the wholesale market, however the greatest amounts are retailed. Although some of the smaller producers were having trouble marketing their maple syrup, 89 percent reported "usually" or "almost always" getting a fair price for this product. The majority of Michigan's maple syrup producers believed the supply of labor at wage rates they could afford is inadequate to meet their needs. Yet 9 5 percent of the producers reported that they did not have to guarantee their workers a specific number of hours on the job to have them available when needed. Some producers did suggest that one possible solution to the labor problem was more tubing and less buckets. Costs and Returns The prediction equations generated in this study, and the analysis of covariance that followed, indicated that over the 500 to 3,000-taphole range studied, the investment in sap production equipment was less for any size of tubing operation than it was for a comparable bucket system. For a 1,000-taphole operation, the invest­ ment in a tubing collection system was $1,447 less than for a bucket system of the same size. 104 Tubing was also favored over buckets as far as labor inputs and labor cost were concerned. The average labor time per taphole recorded by the study's cooperators for the complete sap production process was 12.7 minutes for buckets, but only 7.7 minutes for tubing. In terms of cost per taphole, these values became, at $2.12 per hour, $.45 for buckets and $.27 for tubing. Furthermore, 61 per­ cent of the labor inputs came during the sap gathering phase of the production process when the bucket collection system was employed, but only 10 percent of tubing labor occurred here. With tubing, most (59 percent) of the labor was needed in the initial set-up. Total annual c o st s, which are the sum of annual equipment costs, operation, and maintenance costs, labor costs, material expenses, taphole rental costs, and management costs, averaged, over the two years of the study, $1.13 per taphole for the 20 bucket operations without workmen's compensation insurance, and $1.26 for the same operations with workmen's compensation. Labor costs were computed with and without workmen's compensation insurance required under Michigan law because some producers do not qualify, and others fail to provide the coverage. For the 21 tubing operations, average total annual cost for the two years was $.7 8 per taphole without workmen's compensation and $.91 with it. Labor was the largest cost item for bucket oper­ ations, accounting for 40 or 46 percent of the total cost 105 depending on whether the workmen's compensation premium was included or not. The largest cost item for tubing oper­ ations without workmen's compensation was the annual cost of owning the equipment. When workmen's compensation was included, annual equipment cost became secondary to labor inputs. As expected, the total cost curves generated by least squares computational procedures to express the relationship between total cost of sap production and the number of tapholes differed significantly between bucket and tubing operations. The total cost curves for buckets were above those of tubing. Minimum cost per taphole (minimum average total cost) occurred for bucket operations compensation) (without workmen's at 1,515 tapholes and was $.96 per taphole. With the workmen's compensation premium, the minimum for buckets was increased to $1.07 per taphole at 1,620 tapholes. Tubing operations exhibited a minimum cost per taphole of $.70 at 1,4 85 tapholes without workmen's com­ pensation, and $.82 per taphole at 1,6 80 tapholes with this insurance coverage. Break-even and marginal analysis have shown for a range of sap yields, sugar concentrations and associated prices, the minimum number of tapholes needed to break even and the number needed to realize maximum net returns. Naturally, the higher the yield and sugar content values, 106 the lower the break-even size and the larger the marginal size regardless of collection system employed. \ IMPLICATIONS Results of this study indicate a net increase in maple sap production can be expected among current Michigan producers between 1973 and 1977. will be no easy matter, however, Achieving this objective as the majority of pro­ ducers believe the supply of labor at wage rates they can afford is inadequate. Furthermore, it is doubtful that seasonal agricultural labor will become more plentiful in the state. To resolve the labor problem, some producers have suggested increased use of tubing in sap production operations. One-fourth of the producers surveyed plan on converting portions of their tappable resource from buckets to a tubing collection system. The wisdom of these planned shifts has been borne out by the cost and returns portion of this study. For maple sap production in Michigan, and perhaps elsewhere as well, within the approximate range of 500 to 3,000 tapholes, vacuum pumped tubing collection systems are to be preferred over bucket collection systems. Total cost of sap production is lower with tubing than with buckets, and, consequently, net returns are greater for the former. 107 108 Reasons for the lower total cost are obvious. The two largest single cost items, equipment investment and labor, are less for tubing operations than for bucket operations of the same number of The timing of favoring tubing. tapholes. labor inputs is another factor With a tubing collection system, the largest inputs of labor come during the initial setup and not during the gathering phase as is the case with the bucket system. Thus, when the sap isflowing heavily, the producer is freed of most of the worries of sap collection, and can devote more of his energies to the very demanding task of boiling the sap. system. This is not true with the bucket Also, by spreading the set-up and take-down activities over a longer period of time than might normally be the case, a producer and his immediate family can handle, without any extra seasonal labor, a larger number of tapholes than would be possible with a bucket system. doing it all themselves, By they can avoid labor problems, eliminate the cost for outside labor, and legally forego the minimum workmen's compensation premium of $183. Costs and returns notwithstanding, plastic tubing networks are not a panacea. cal know-how than do buckets. Tubing requires more technologi­ And, although it is possible to get increased yields with tubing, if proper techniques are not employed, yields may be lower. Although tubing does appear to be the method to u s e , producers having large investments in bucket collection 109 systems would be ill advised to dispose of their buckets and invest in tubing. But as the buckets wear out and need to be replaced, the producer should give strong consider­ ation to replacing buckets with tubing. In this way, the producer can ease into tubing gradually, and in so doing, allow himself time to experiment and discover what works best under his particular set of conditions. New sap producers would do well to start out with a few hundred tapholes on tubing for the first season, add to this number as they gain in experience. and Although profits may be low or nonexistent at first, catastrophic losses will be avoided if events do not transpire as antici­ pated . Before installing any tubing, producers should gather and study as much information about this sap col­ lection system as possible. Other producers are an excel­ lent source of information. Learning from their mistakes is always easier than making the mistakes yourself. Be­ sides, most maple producers are only too happy to impress the novice with their knowledge of the subject. L IT E R A T U R E C IT E D LITERATURE CITED Acker, Darrel, Theodore Peterson, and William Saupe. 1970. Costs and returns for selected Wisconsin maple syrup operations, 1969. Univ. of Wis., Col. of Agr. and Life S c i ., Res. Div., Res. Rpt. 68. Anonymous. Undated. Wisconsin maple syrup production and marketing records. Dept, of For., Coop. Ext. S er., Col. of A g r . , Univ. of Wis. Blum, Barton M. 1967. Plastic tubing for collecting maple sap--a com­ parison of suspended vented and unvented instal­ lations. N.C. For. Expt. Sta., Res. Pap. NE-90. ________ , and Melvin R. Koelling. 1968. Vacuum pumping increases sap yields from sugar maple trees. N.E. For. Expt. Sta., Res. Pap. NE-106. Bowers, Wendell. 19 70. Modern Concepts of Farm Machinery Management. Stipes Pub. Co., Champaign, 111. Davis, Kenneth P. 1966. Forest Management: Regulation and Valuation, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., N.Y., St. Louis, San Francisco, Toronto, London, and Sydney. Elliott, Norris, Claire Voger, Philip Grime, Malcolm Franz, Harold Pulling, and John Cooper. Undated. Increasing maple syrup production in Caledonia County, Vermont. N.E. Kingdom Area Rural Develop­ ment Committee. Foulds, Taymond T., Jr. 1973. Better syrup-making from . . . the tube in the forest. American Agriculturist, Mar. 1973, pp. 2 0-2 3. 110 Ill Griggs, N. S. 19 55. An improved system for maple sap collection. Bur. Ind. R es., Norwich U n i v . , Northfield, V T . , Mimeo. Hunt, Donnell. 196 4. Farm power and machinery management. Univ. Press, Ames, Iowa, pp. 43-53. Iowa State Kearl, C. D. 1970. An economic study of maple sap and syrup production in New York State, 1969. Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N . Y . , A . E . Res. 314. Koelling, Melvin R. 1970. The use of vacuum pumping in Michigan sugarbushes. Natl. Maple Syrup Digest 9(l):6-9. ________ , Barton M. Blum, and Carter B. Gibbs. 19 68. A summary and evaluation of research on the use of plastic tubing in maple sap production. N.E. For. Expt. Sta., Res. Pap. NE-116. Laing, F. M . , M. T. G. Lighthall, and J. W. Marvin. 1960. The use of plastic tubing in gathering maple sap. Vt. Agr. Expt. Sta., Pam. 32. 19 62. Effect of new techniques on maple sap yields (Progress Rpt. No. 2). Vt. Agr. Expt. S t a . , Misc. Pub. 20. 1§6 2”. Studies on pipeline systems for gathering maple sap. Vt. Agr. Expt. Sta. , Misc. Pub. 17. Laing, F. M . , J. W. Marvin, and W. J. Chamberlain. 1964. Results and evaluation of new maple techniques (Progress Rpt. No. 3). Vt. Agr. Expt. S t a . , Misc. Pub. 42. ________ , J. W. Marvin, Mariafranca Marselli, David W. Racusen, E. L. Arnold, and Elizabeth G. Malcolm. 1971. Effect of high-vacuum pumping on volume yields and composition of maple sap. Vt. Agr. Expt. Sta., Res. Rpt. MP 65. Little, E. L . , Jr. 19 53. Check list of native and naturalized trees of the United States (including Alaska). U.S. Dept. Agr., Handbook 41. 112 Morrow, Robert R . , Jr. 1958. Plastic tubing tested for maple sap production. Cornell Agr. Expt. Sta., Farm Res. 24(3):4-5. 19fit: Plastic tubing for maple sap. Sta., Farm Res. 29(2):12-13. 196 3. Vacuum pumping and tubing gather maple sap. Cornell Agr. Expt. Sta., Farm Res. 29(23):14. 19681 Maple syrup research at Cornell University. U.S. Dept. Agr., Agr. Res. Ser., Rpt. of P r oc., 7th Conf. on Maple Products:3-5. 19 69. The application of vacuum in sugar bushes. Cornell Univ., Dept, of Conserv. Res. Series No. 1. 1972. Cost of maple sap production with aerial tubing. Dept, of Nat. Resources, Mimeo. 1972. Cornell Agr. Expt. Natural vacuum and the flow of maple sap. N.Y. Food and Life Sci. Bui. No. 14, Nat. Resources No. 1. ________ , and Carter B. Gibbs. 1969. Vacuum pumping doubles maple sap yield on flat land. N.E. For. Expt. Sta., Res. Note NE-91. Nyland, R. D . , and V. J. Rudolph, 1969. Profitable tapping of sugar maples in Michigan's Lower Peninsula. Mich. State U n iv., Agr. Expt. Sta. and Coop. Ext. S er., Res. Rpt. 81. 1970. Maple syrup production in Michigan's Lower Penin­ sula. Mich. State U n iv., Agr. Expt. Sta. and Coop. Ext. Ser., Res. Rpt. 106. Shapley, Allen E. 1973. Clarification of workmen's compensation insurance. Center for Rural Manpower and Public Affairs, Mich. State Univ., Special Pap. No. 16. 113 Shigo, Alex L . , and Fredrick M. Laing. 19 70. Some effects of paraformaldehyde on wood sur­ rounding tapholes in sugar maple trees. N.E. For. Expt. S t a . , Res. Pap. NE-161. Smith, Du Bois T. 19 69. Management practices in maple syrup production in New York, 1968. Cornell Univ. Agr. Expt. Sta., A.E. Res. 278. Smith, H. Clay, and Carter B. Gibbs. 19 70. Paraformaldehyde pellet not necessary in vacuumpumped maple sap system. N.E. For. Expt. Sta., Res. Note NE-118. ________ , Bradford E. Walker, Alex L. Shigo, and Frederick M. Laing. 1970. Results of recent research on the pellet. Natl. Maple Syrup Digest 9:18-21. Taylor, Reed D., Jerome K. Pasto, and Herman M. Southworth. 1967. Production trends and patterns of the maple syrup industry in North America. Penn. State Uni v . , Col. Agr., Agr. Expt. Sta., Bui. 74 2. Willits, C. O. 1965. Maple sirup producers manual. Agr. Handbook 134 (Revised). U.S. Dept. Agr., ________ , and Lloyd Sipple. 19 68. The use of plastic tubing for collecting and transporting maple sap. U.S. Dept. Agr., Agr. Res. Ser., ARS 73-35. Winch, F. E ., Jr. 19 59. New developments in the New York maple industry. U.S. Dept. Agr., Agr. Res. Ser., Rpt. of P r o c ., 4th Conf. on Maple Products:20-24. 114 General References Draper, N. R . , and H. Smith. 1966. Applied Regression Analysis. inc., N.Y., London, Sydney. John Wiley and Sons, Freese, Frank. 1964. Linear Regression Methods for Forest Research. For. Prod. Lab., Res. Pap. FPL-17. Gregory, G. Robinson. 1972. Forest Resource Economics. N. Y. The Ronald Press Co., Heady, Earl O. 1952. Economics of Agricultural Production and Resource Use. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Snedecor, George W . , and William G. Cochran. 1967. Statistical Methods. Ed. 6. The Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, Iowa. Sokal, Robert R . , and F. James Rohlf. 1969. Biometry. W. H. Freeman and C o . , San Francisco. Wonnacott, Ronald J . , and Thomas H. Wonnacott. 1970. Econometrics. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., N.Y., London, Sydney, Toronto. APPENDICES APPENDIX A MAPLE SYRUP PRODUCER SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE FORM APPENDIX A MAPLE SYRUP PRODUCER SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE FORM C O N FID EN TIA L ( F o r R e s e a rc h P u rp o s e s O n ly ) T h is MAPLE PRODUCER SURVEY i s b e in g c o n d u c te d by th e FORESTRY DEPARTMENT M ICHIGAN STATE U N IV E R S IT Y P le a s e a n s w e r t h e q u e s t io n s b y p u t t i n g o r by f i l l i n g in th e b la n k s . I. a check in th e a p p r o p r ia t e b lo c k GENERAL INFORMATION 1. D id y o u p r o d u c e an y m a p le p r o d u c t s i n 1 9 7 2 ? ( I f y e s , p le a s e c o n tin u e . I f n o , s to p a t t h i s r e t u r n th e q u e s t io n n a ir e .) Yes. p o i n t and 2. Y o u r p r i n c i p a l o c c u p a t io n i s ? _____________________________________ 3. How many y e a r s h a v e y o u b e e n p r o d u c in g m a p le p r o d u c t s y o u r p r e s e n t l o c a t i o n ? _______________ 4. W h ich o f t h e f o l l o w i n g ______ Sap an d s y r u p . ______ Sap o n l y . ______ S y ru p o n l y . 5. How many t a p h o l e s d i d y o u h a v e f o r t h e 1 9 7 2 s e a s o n , and how many d id you a v e ra g e o v e r th e p a s t 5 seasons (1 9 6 8 -1 9 7 2 )? A v e ra g e f o r 1972 1 9 6 8 -1 9 7 2 On p r o p e r t y t h a t y o u ow n. On n o n -o w n e d p r o p e r t i e s . at do y o u p ro d u c e ? 115 No. 116 II. 6. W h at l i m i t e d t h e n u m b e r o f t a p h o l e s i n 1 9 7 2 ? (C h e c k one o r m o r e .) ______ No m ore t a p h o l e s a v a i l a b l e on t h e p r o p e r t y . No m ore t a p h o l e s a v a i l a b l e i n t h e a r e a . Ca n n o t h a n d le m o re t a p s w i t h p r e s e n t s a p g a t h e r i n g e q u ip m e n t . ______ C a n n o t h a n d le m o re sa p w i t h p r e s e n t e v a p o r a t o r . Th e r e i s n o m a r k e t f o r m ore s a p o r s y r u p . ______ Do n o t h a v e t i m e t o t a p m o r e . ______ A d d i t i o n a l l a b o r r e q u i r e d t o h a n d le m ore t a p s i s n o t a v a ila b le in th e a re a . ______ I t d o e s n ' t p a y t o t a p m o re . E x p e r i e n c e h a s shown t h i s t o b e a s a t i s f a c t o r y n u m b e r. ______ O t h e r ( P le a s e s p e c i f y ) . _______________________________________ 7. How many t a p h o l e s 8. How many g a l l o n s o f s a p d i d y o u a v e r a g e p e r t a p h o l e 1 9 7 2 ? ______ 9. How many g a l l o n s o f s a p w e r e g a l l o n o f s y ru p ? ______ d id y o u r a v e ra g e tre e r e q u ir e d in have in 1 97 2? ____ in 1 9 7 2 t o m ake one 10. D id y o u p u r c h a s e a n y s a p i n 1 9 7 2 ? I f y e s , how many g a l l o n s ? ______ _____ Y e s . 11. D id y o u s e l l an y s a p i n 1 9 7 2 ? I f y e s , how many g a l l o n s ? ______ Yes. 12. D id y o u p u r c h a s e a n y s y r u p i n 1 9 7 2 ? I f y e s , how many g a l l o n s ? _____ _____ Y e s . No. No. N o. MARKETING 1. How do y o u n o r m a l ly m a r k e t y o u r s y r u p ? 100%> r e t a i l . 90% r e t a i l - 10% w h o l e s a l e . 80% r e t a i l - 20% w h o l e s a l e . 70% r e t a i l - 30% w h o l e s a l e . 60% r e t a i l - 40% w h o l e s a l e . 50% r e t a i l - 50% w h o l e s a l e . 40% r e t a i l - 60% w h o l e s a l e . 30% r e t a i l - 70% w h o l e s a l e . 20% r e t a i l - 80% w h o le s a l e . 10% r e t a i l - 90% w h o l e s a l e . 100%. w h o l e s a l e . 2. A r e y o u a b l e t o d is p o s e o f y o u r s y r u p a t w h a t y o u c o n s id e r a " f a i r " p r ic e ? ______ A lm o s t a lw a y s . ______ S e ld o m . ______ U s u a l l y . P r a c tic a lly n e v e r. S o m e tim e s . 117 -III. 3. W h a t w as t h e a v e r a g e p r i c e g a llo n o f s y ru p ? A t w h o le s a le . At r e ta il. t h a t you r e c e iv e d 4. W h a t w o u ld y o u c o n s i d e r a " f a i r " At w h o l e s a l e . At r e ta il. p r ic e to in 1972 f o r a be? PRODUCTION 1. W h a t a r e y o u r p l a n s c o n c e r n in g p r o d u c t i o n f o r y e a rs ? S ap p r o d u c t i o n (C h e c k o n e ) . ______ N o c h a n g e a n t i c i p a t e d ( l e s s t h a n 1 0 % ). Wi l l g e t o u t o f t h e b u s i n e s s . ______ W i l l e x p a n d t a p p i n g b y 1 1 - 50% . ______ W i l l e x p a n d t a p p i n g b y 5 1 - 100% . Wi l l e x p a n d t a p p i n g b y m o re t h a n 100% . Wi l l r e d u c e t a p p i n g b y 1 1 - 50% . ______ W i l l r e d u c e t a p p i n g b y 5 1 - 100 % . th e next 5 S y ru p p r o d u c t i o n (C h e c k o n e ) . ______ N o c h a n g e a n t i c i p a t e d ( l e s s t h a n 1 0 % ). Wi l l g e t o u t o f t h e b u s i n e s s . Wi l l e x p a n d b o i l i n g b y 1 1 - 50% . ______ W i l l e x p a n d b o i l i n g b y 5 1 - 100 % . ______ W i l l e x p a n d b o i l i n g b y m o re t h a n 100% . Wi l l r e d u c e b o i l i n g b y 11 - 50% . ______ W i l l r e d u c e b o i l i n g b y 5 1 - 100% . 2. A re yo u c u r r e n t l y o r h a v e y o u a t any tim e u s e d p l a s t i c t u b i n g i n y o u r m a p le s a p o p e r a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g a n y t r y - i t a n d -s e e ty p e t e s t s ? Yes. No. 3. I n 1 9 7 2 , how sap c o l l e c t io B u c k e ts ______ P l a s t i c ______ P l a s t i c 4. Do y o u p l a n t o c h a n g e t h i s r e l a t i v e tu b in g in t h e n e x t f i v e y e a rs ? If m any t a p s d i d y o u h a v e o n e a c h o f t h e n s y s te m s ? (in c lu d in g p l a s t i c b a g s ). tu b in g ( g r a v it y o n l y ) . t u b i n g ( w i t h vacuum p u m p ). y e s , p le a s e i n d 100% b u c k e t s . ______ 90% b u c k e t s ______ 80% b u c k e t s ______ 70% b u c k e t s ______ 60% b u c k e t s ______ 50% b u c k e t s ______ 40% b u c k e t s ______ 30% b u c k e t s - ic a te 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% th e p r o p o r t io n o f b u c k e ts Yes. No. a n tic ip a te d tu b in g . tu b in g . tu b in g . tu b in g . tu b in g . tu b in g . tu b in g . f o llo w in g r e la tiv e to p r o p o r tio n s . 118 2 0% b u c k e t s ______ 10% b u c k e t s 1 00% t u b i n g . IV . 80% t u b i n g . 90% t u b i n g . 5. I n y o u r o p in io n do th e i t s d is a d v a n t a g e s ? 6. Do y o u t h i n k o p e r a tio n ? a d v a n ta g e s o f p l a s t i c Yes. No. t u b i n g c o u ld p r o f i t a b l y Yes. No . tu b in g b e e m p lo y e d i n o u tw e ig h your MANAGEMENT & LABOR T h e n e x t s e v e n q u e s t i o n s r e f e r o n l y t o m a p le s a p p r o d u c t i o n , w h ic h f o r o u r p u rp o s e s h e r e w i l l i n c l u d e a l l t h e p r o c e s s e s i n v o l v e d i n g e t t i n g t h e s a p fro m t h e t r e e i n t o t h e s t o r a g e t a n k a t t h e s u g a r house. Any p r o c e s s e s b e y o n d t h i s p o i n t ( e . g . , b o i l i n g , m a r k e t i n g , e t c . ) s h o u ld b e i g n o r e d . In a d d it io n , each q u e s tio n h as space a l l o t t e d f o r r e s p o n s e s p e r t a i n i n g t o e a c h o f t h e tw o b a s i c s a p c o l l e c t i o n s y s te m s , i . e . , b u c k e t s and t u b i n g ( t u b i n g e i t h e r w i t h o r w i t h o u t vacuum p u m p ). T h e r e fo r e , a p ro d u c e r u t i l i z i n g b o th b u c k e t s and t u b i n g i n h i s o p e r a t i o n w o u ld e n t e r tw o re s p o n s e s f o r e a c h q u e s t i o n , w h i l e a p r o d u c e r w i t h e i t h e r b u c k e t s a lo n e o r t u b i n g a lo n e w i l l o n l y h a v e an e n t r y u n d e r t h e one a p p r o p r i a t e c a te g o ry . 1. How many h o u rs p e r y e a r do y o u n o r m a l ly e x p e c t t o s p e n d on m anagem ent f o r t h e n u m b e r o f t a p s y o u h a d i n 1 9 7 2 ? By m anag em ent we m ean a c t i v i t i e s s u c h a s , b u t n o t l i m i t e d to th e fo llo w in g : t h i n k i n g , p l a n n i n g , b o o k k e e p in g , h i r i n g , a t t e n d i n g m e e t in g s , o r d e r i n g s u p p l i e s , e t c . Labor p e r­ fo rm e d b y t h e p r o d u c e r ( e . g . , h a n g in g b u c k e t s ) i s n o t c o n s id e r e d a m an ag em en t a c t i v i t y a c c o r d in g t o o u r d e f i n i ­ tio n . Time spent on management chargeable to: B u c k e ts h o u rs p e r y e a r . T u b in g ______ h o u rs p e r y e a r . 2. W hat v a l u e do y o u p l a c e on y o u r t im e s p e n t i n t h e s e m anage­ m ent a c t i v i t i e s ? F o r b u c k e t s : $______ / h o u r . F o r tu b in g . $______ / h o u r . Is t h is th e p e rfo rm ? same v a l u e t h a t y o u p l a c e on l a b o r t h a t yo u Yes. No. I f n o , w h a t i s t h e v a lu e ? F o r b u c k e ts : $_____ / h o u r . F o r tu b in g : $_____ / h o u r . 119 3. How m any w o r k e r s ( i n c l u d i n g y o u r s e l f ) p r o d u c in g m a p le s a p i n 1 9 7 2 ? W it h b u c k e t s _____ . W it h t u b i n g ______ . 4. How m any o f t h e s e w e r e m em bers o f y o u r im m e d ia t e (a g a in in c lu d in g y o u r s e l f ) ? B u c k e ts . T u b in g . 5. How m any o f t h e t o t a l a r e f u l l - t i m e B u c k e t s _____ . T u b in g ______ . T h e ir a v e ra g e r a t e B u c k e ts $___ / h r . T u b in g $___ / h r . 6. w e re eng aged in fa m ily e m p lo y e e s ? o f pay? How m any a r e s e a s o n a l e m p lo y e e s ? B u c k e ts . T u b in g ______ . T h e ir a v e ra g e r a t e B u c k e ts $___ / h r . T u b in g $ / h r. How o f t e n B u c k e ts T u b in g a re o f pay? th e y p a id ? . . 7. F o r b u c k e t o p e ra tio n s o n ly , w h a t i s th e a v e ra g e s iz e o f y o u r g a th e r in g c re w s , in c lu d in g t r a c t o r d r iv e r s ( i . e . , num ber o f w o r k e r s p e r g a t h e r i n g t a n k ) ? _____ 8. W o u ld y o u s a y t h a t a d e q u a t e s u p p ly o f a ffo rd ? Yes. 9. Do y o u f i n d i t n e c e s s a r y t o g u a r a n t e e y o u r w o r k e r s a s p e c i f i c num ber o f h o u r s / d a y o r p e r w e e k i n o r d e r t o h a v e s u f f i c i e n t l a b o r o n h a n d w hen i t i s n e e d e d ? Yes. No. 10. W hat i s h e lp i s f o r m a p le s a p p r o d u c t i o n t h e r e i s l a b o r i n y o u r a r e a a t a w ag e r a t e No . an you can t h e b i g g e s t p r o b le m y o u e n c o u n t e r a s f a r as h i r e d c o n c e r n e d ? ___________________________________________________ Your s o lu tio n if any: 120 V. PRODUCER SUGGESTIONS 1. I n t o w h a t a r e a ( s ) o f M i c h i g a n 's m a p le s y r u p i n d u s t r y d o y o u t h i n k f u t u r e r e s e a r c h e f f o r t s s h o u ld b e c h a n n e le d ? 2. Any c o m m e n ts , c r i t i c i s m s , o r s u g g e s t io n s c o n c e r n in g t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n p a r t i c u l a r o r t h e m a p le i n d u s t r y i n g e n e r a l: APPENDIX B COOPERATORS USING BUCKET COLLECTION SYSTEM Table B-l.— Cooperators Using Bucket Collection System. .* .-:==g^= ID Code B-l B-8 B-2a B- 2b B-4 B-9 B-4a B- 5b B- 4b B-6 B- 5a B-7 Number of Tapholes Name and Location 1972 1973 Mrs. Amos Haigh Charlotte, Michigan 500 500 Mr. R. W. Sibbald Barbeau, Michigan NISa 800 Mr. George Fogle Mason, Michigan 850 850 Mr. Wayne Pennock Nashville, Michigan 920 960 Mr. Ralph Snow Mason, Michigan 960 970 Mr. Floyd Moore Ocqueoc, Michigan NIS 1, 550 Mr. Ellsworth Handrich Fairview, Michigan NIS 1,950 1, 650 1,978 NIS 2, 000 Mr* Robert Shaw Grand Ledge, Michigan 2, 025 2 ,025 Mr. Lyle Luchenbill Kewadin, Michigan 2 ,100 2,100 Mrs. Carl Gearhart Charlotte, Michigan 2 ,605 2,685 Mr. Terry Healey Charlevoix, Michigan Mr. Raymond Postma Rudyard, Michigan aNot in the study in 1972. 121 APPENDIX C COOPERATORS USING TUBING COLLECTION SYSTEM Table C-l.— Cooperators Using Tubing Collection System. Number of Tapholes Th XU Code T- lb T-la T- 3 T-2a T-2b T-5 T-8 T-3a T-4a T~ 4b T-6 T-7 1972 1973 Mr. R. W. Sibbald Barbeau, Michigan 300 300 Mr. Robert Currey Almont, Michigan 550 550 Mr. Ivan Parsons East Jordan, Michigan NISa 600 Mr. Joe Ostanek Trenary, Michigan 900 900 Mr. Robert Currey Almont, Michigan 1,000 1,000 Mr. Floyd Moore Ocqueoc, Michigan 1 , Name and Location 100 1, Mr. Lawrence Carncross Clare, Michigan NIS 1, 400 Mr. Leroy Warden Beulah, Michigan NIS 1,445 Mr. Joe Ostanek Trenary, Michigan 900 1, 000 800 Mr. Rowland Wehr Charlotte, Michigan 2,200 2, 000 Mr. Terry Healey Charlevoix, Michigan 1,960 2,011 Mr. Leonard Carpenter Harbor Springs, Michigan 2 ,550 2, 850 aNot in the study in 19 72. 122 APPENDIX D GENERAL INFORMATION FORM APPENDIX D GENERAL INFORMATION FORM CONFIDENTIAL Producer Identification Code __________ Operator: Address: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Operator’s primary business or occupation: Bush Location: ________________ County Township _________________ School District____________________ Slope: __________________ Aspect: No. of taps this year (Study) Operator owned ________________ Rented ________________ Total ______________ No. of taps not in study Grand Total __________________ Tap rental fee: _______________________________________________ Total No. trees tapped this year: __________________ Average No, taps per tree:_________________ __________________ 123 APPENDIX E LABOR INFORMATION FORM APPENDIX E LABOR INFORMATION FORM CONFIDENTIAL Producer Identification Code _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Total No. of workers (excluding operator) engaged in maple sap production: __________________ No. of total that are members of the operator's immediate _________________ family: N o . of total that are full-time employees of the operator:____________________________________ _______ Their rate of pay: Average _______ Range_______________________________________ No. of total that are seasonal employees: ______ Their rate of pay: Average ______ Range ______ Frequency of payment: Daily or on demand__________________ ______ Weekly ______ 124 125 Monthly End of season ________________ No. of years experience of employees in maple sap production: Average ___________________ Range ___________________ Source(s) of employees: Town or city ________________ Rural__________________________________________________ Friends and neighbors _________________ High school or college students __________________ Migrant workers ________________ Advertise (want ads) State employment agency ____________ Other ______________ Employees (were/were not) observed to interchange jobs if need There (appears/does not appear) to be flexible enough be. to be an adequate supply of labor in the operator’s area. The operator (does/does not) find it necessary to guarantee his workers a specific number of hours/day or per week in order to have sufficient labor on hand when it is needed. Seasonal employees were observed to spend _____ % of their time on activities other than sap production. % of time on sap production % 126 Sugarbush acreage: __ acres Estimated value per acre of sugarbush: £ /acre Basis: ___________________________________ Sugarbush t a x e s : Assessed value £ Assessment rate _ Equilization factor _ Millage rate Tax £ Distance from sugarbush to sugarhouse: _ Distance from home to sugarbush: _ No. of years bush has been tapped: No. of years by present operator: Average No. taps last 5 years: Average sap production last 5 years: __ gal. Average °Brix last 5 years: Average syrup production last 5 years: Future sap production: _______________________________________ Future production methods: No. of hours per year spent by operator on management activities: ______ Value of operator's time for: Management /hr. Labor /hr. 127 % of time spent on other activities (e.g., splitting wood, boiling sap, milking cows, etc.) Activity % % % % Total 100% The biggest problem the operator seems to have as far as hired help is concerned is: __________________________ His solution: Comments: APPENDIX F DAILY TIME AND POWER RECORD FORMS BUCKET SYSTEM APPENDIX P DAILY TIME AND POWER RECORD FORMS— BUCKET SYSTEM CONFIDENTIAL Daily Time & Power Record (Preparation) DATE 1 TOTAL # HELPERS 2 5 SPECIFIC 3 ACTIVITY POWER USED PREPARATION 4 WASHER (BKT. OR TUB.) 128 *** ** * *** Opr, ManHrs. # Help ManHrs. Page Totals ***Record Honrs to Nearest .25 Hour*** NO. HOURS SNOWMOBILE NO. HOURS TRACTOR NO. HOURS CONFIDENTIAL Daily Tine t Power Record (Set-Up, Buckets) POWER USED 5 DATE 1 inj„, tor. 2 « HELP­ ERS *** *•* SPECIFIC 3 ACTIVITY **** TAPPING 61. Opr. Man Hrs Help ran I Hrs BUCKET 6B LAY. S HANG. COLLECTION 6C TANK PLACEKENT Opr. Man Hrs Opr. Man Hrs Help Man * Hrs Help 1 Man Hrs OTHER 6D Opr. Man Hrs Help ft Kan Hrs TRAVEL 6E (TO & FROM) Opr. Man Hrs Help ft POWER TAPPER SNOW­ MOBILE ft Hrs ft Hrs TRACTOR ft Hr3 Man Hrs 129 1 ! i ! ***Hecord Hours to Nearest .25 Hour*** Daily Time t Fewer Record (Gathering, Buckets) CONFIDENTIAL POWER USED 5 DATE 1 TOT, 2 SPECIFIC 3 COLLECTION ' h Sl p - MAINTEN­ ANCE 7B 7D OTHER 7C TRAVEL (TO £ FROM) ERS *+* **** Opr. Man Hrs # Help Hrn Hrs Opr. Man Hrs » Help Man Hrs Opr. Man Hrs # Help Man Hrs Opr. Man Hrs # Help Kan Hrs SAP GATH­ ERED (GAL.) “BRIX 9 SNOW­ MOBILE TRACTOR # Hrs # Hrs 130 ***Record Hours to Nearest ,25 Hour*** CONFIDENTIAL Daily Tine & Power Record (Take-Down, Buckets) POWER USED 5 DATE 1 ♦♦ft TOT. . # HELP­ ERS ♦•ft SPECIFIC 3 ACTIVITY •♦♦ft BUCKETS £ COVERS Opr. Han Hrs 1 Help Man Hrs COLLECTION TANKS Opr. Han Hrs 4 10B Help Man Hrs CLEANING 4 STORAGE Opr. Man Hrs 1 IOC )elp Man Hrs 10E TRAVEL (TO £ FROM) OTHER opr. Man Hrs Help 1 Ran Hrs Opr. Man Hrs 1 Help Man Hrs - . •"Record Hours to Nearest .25 Hour*** J BUCKET WASHER SNOW— MOBILE TRACTOR # HRS « HRS 1 HRS APPENDIX G INSTRUCTIONS FOR DAILY TIME AND POWER RECORD— BUCKET SYSTEM APPENDIX G INSTRUC TIO N S FOR D A IL Y T IM E AND POWER RECORD— BUCKET SYSTEM D a te — M a in t a in a c tiv itie s a d a i l y re c o rd o f th e v a r io u s and p o w e r u s e d . sap p r o d u c tio n N um ber o f H e l p e r s — A d a i l y t a b u l a t i o n o f t h e t o t a l num ber o f p e r s o n s e n g a g e d i n m a p le s a p p r o d u c t i o n — e x c l u d i n g t h e o p e r a t o r , b u t i n c l u d i n g h i s im m e d ia t e f a m i l y . S p e c i f i c A c t i v i t y — Use a s h o r t p h r a s e t o fo rm e d ( e . g . , h a n g in g b u c k e t s ) . id e n tify th e w o rk p e r ­ P r e p a r a t io n — In c lu d e s la b o r tim e d e v o te d t o c le a n in g r e p a i r i n g b u c k e t s , t a p p i n g e q u ip m e n t , s n o w s h o e s , i n c l u d e s w h e re a p p r o p r i a t e t h e t im e s p e n t i n t h e woods r o a d s . P o w er U sed— T h e am o u n t o f t im e a r e in o p e r a tio n ; a. b. c. d. e. th e f o llo w in g p ie c e s an d e tc . A ls o c le a r in g o f o f e q u ip m e n t W asher (b u c k e t o r t u b i n g ) . Pow er T a p p e r. S n o w m o b ile . T ra c to r. Vacuum Pump. S e t - u p — I n c l u d e s t h e l a b o r t im e i n v o l v e d i n s e t t i n g - u p t h e c o l l e c t i o n s y s te m . T h i s t im e w i l l b e r e c o r d e d a p p r o p r i a t e l y as f o l l o w s : a. T a p p in g — T im e f o r b o r i n g t h e t a p h o l e , p e l l e t s , and i n s e r t i n g s p i l e s . in s e r tin g g e r m ic id a l b. B u c k e t L a y o u t and H a n g in g — T im e u s e d t o l a y o u t , h a n g , f i t c o v e rs to th e b u c k e ts i n th e s u g a rb u s h . and 133 7. c. C o lle c tio n c o lle c tio n T a n k P la c e m e n t — T im e u s e d t o i n s t a l l an y ta n k s o r s t o r a g e r e s e r v o i r s i n t h e s u g a r b u s h . d. O t h e r — T im e u s e d i n a n y o t h e r s e t - u p a c t i v i t y s p e c i f i c a l l y c o v e re d i n a t h r u d a b o v e . e. T r a v e l (T o a n d F r o m )— T r a n s p o r t a t i o n o f e q u ip m e n t t o t h e s u g a r b u s h w i l l b e i n c l u d e d h e r e , a s w i l l t r a v e l t im e o f c re w s t o a n d fro m t h e s u g a r b u s h . Sap G a t h e r i n g — I n c l u d e s t h e l a b o r t i m e o f a l l a s p e c t s o f c o l l e c t i o n p h a s e r e c o r d e d a p p r o p r i a t e l y as f o l l o w s : th e sap a. C o l l e c t i o n — I n t h e b u c k e t s y s te m , t i m e s p e n t c o l l e c t i n g t h e s a p fro m t h e i n d i v i d u a l t a p s . A l s o i n c l u d e s t im e s p e n t d u m p in g i c e o r s p o i l e d s a p a s w e l l as t i m e r e q u i r e d t o d e t e r m in e i f s a p c o l l e c t i o n i s w a r r a n t e d . b. M a in te n a n c e — T im e s p e n t c h e c k in g f o r l e a k s , r e p a i r i n g , an d m a i n t a i n i n g t h e c o l l e c t i o n s y s te m and a s s o c i a t e d e q u ip m e n t. c. O t h e r — T im e u s e d i n a n y o t h e r s a p g a t h e r i n g s p e c if i c a l ly c o v e re d in a th r u c . d. T r a v e l (T o a n d F r o m )— T r a n s p o r t a t i o n s u g a rb u s h . 8. Sap G a th e r e d — T h e num ber o f g a l l o n s 9. ° B r i x — The d a i l y 10. not t im e to o f sap g a th e re d a v e ra g e o f th e p e r c e n t s u g a r in th e a c tiv ity a n d fro m not th e each d ay . sap. T a k e -d o w n — I n c l u d e s t h e l a b o r t im e i n v o l v e d i n d is a s s e m b lin g t h e b u c k e t s y s te m a s w e l l a s t h e t im e f o r c l e a n i n g a n d s t o r i n g e q u ip m e n t. T im e f o r t h i s a c t i v i t y w i l l b e r e c o r d e d a c c o r d in g to th e fo llo w in g s u b d iv is io n : a. B u c k e ts and C o v e r s — T im e s p e n t r e m o v in g s p i l e s , b u c k e t s , an d c o v e r s fro m i n d i v i d u a l t r e e s a n d b u n c h in g th e m a t an a s s e m b ly p o i n t f o r t r a n s p o r t t o t h e a r e a w h e r e t h e y w i l l b e c le a n e d a n d s t o r e d . b. C o l l e c t i o n T a n k s — T im e u s e d t o ta n k s o r s to r a g e r e s e r v o ir s . c. C l e a n in g a n d S t o r a g e — I n c l u d e s t h e l a b o r t im e i n v o l v e d i n w a s h in g an d d r y i n g o f b u c k e t s , e t c . , as w e l l a s t h e t im e u s e d i n c h e c k in g a n d s t o r i n g e q u ip m e n t. A m id s e a s o n t a n k o r b u c k e t w a s h in g w i l l b e i n c l u d e d i n t h i s c a t e g o r y . ta k e down an y c o l l e c t i o n O th e r — W i l l in c lu d e th e la b o r t im e in v o lv e d i n any t a k e ­ down a c t i v i t y n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y c o v e r e d i n a t h r u c a b o v e . T r a v e l (T o a n d F r o m ) — T r a n s p o r t a t i o n o f t h e e q u ip m e n t fro m th e s u g a rb u s h t o th e c le a n in g and s to r a g e a r e a w i l l be i n c l u d e d h e r e a s w i l l t r a v e l t i m e o f c re w s t o a n d fr o m th e s u g a rb u s h . APPENDIX H DAILY TIME AND POWER RECORD FORMS TUBING SYSTEM APPENDIX H DAILY TIME AND POWER RECORD FORMS— TUBING SYSTEM CONFIDENTIAL Daily Time & Power Record (Preparation) DATE 1 TOTAL # HELPERS 2 POWER USED 5 SPECIFIC 3 ACTIVITY PREPARATION 4 WASHER (BKT. OR TUB.) 135 **★ ** * *** Opr. ManHrs. # Help ManHrs. Page ,Totals ***Record Hours ~o Nearest .25 Hour*** NO. HOURS SNOWMOBILE NO. HOURS TRACTOR NO. HOURS Dally Time c Power Record (Set-Up, Tubing! CONFIDENTIAL POWER USED 5 DATE 1 TOT. # HELP­ ERS SPECIFIC ? ACTIVITY • ** #** #*** TAPPING 6A <^>r. ~ltn Hrs Help Han # Hrs ***Record Hours to Nearest .25 Hour*** TUBING SB LAY. £ HANG. COLLECTION 6C TANK PLACEMENT Opr. Han Hrs Opr. Hah Hrs Help I nan Hrs Help 1 Han Hrs OTHER 6D Opr. Han Hrs Help Han # Hrs TRAVEL 6E (TO £ FROM) Opr. Man Hrs Help nan * Hrs POWER TAPPER SNOW­ MOBILE # Hrs f Hrs TRACTOR * Hrs Daily Tine t Power Record (Gathering, Tubing) CONFIDENTIAL POWER USED 5 DATE 1 TOT. 1 SPECIFIC 3 ACTIVITY MAINT- ?A EHANCE OTHER 7B 7C TRAVEL (TO & FROM) HELP­ ERS *** #*# **** Opr. Mar, » Hrs Help Man Hrs Orp. Man Hrs i Help Han Hrs Opr. Man Hrs 1 Help Man Hrs SAP GATH­ ERED (Gal.) *** °BRIX 9 *** VACUUM PUMP t HRS snow­ TRACTOR mobile # HRS » HRS 137 Page Totals •••Record Hours to Nearest ,25 Hour*** Daily Time S Pouter Record (Take-Down, Tubing) ' CONFIDENTIAL PCHER USED 5 DATE TOT. 2 t SPECIFIC 3 Acrmnf TUBING SYSTEM XOA COLLECTION l0B TANKS #*• IOC OTHER 10D G STORAGE HELP­ ERS *** CLEANING •Mi qpr. Man Hrs I Help Man Hrs Cpr_._ Man Hrs t Help Man Hrs Opr. Kan Hrs * Help Man Hrs Opr. Man Hrs 1 Help Man Hrs TRAVEL (TO G FROM) Opr. Man Hrs t 10E Help Kan Hrs BUCKET HASHER SNOW­ MOBILE * HRS # HRS TRACTOR # HRS 138 •••Record Hours to Nearest .25 Hour*** APPENDIX I INSTRUCTIONS FOR DAILY TIME AND POWER RECORD— TUBING SYSTEM APPENDIX I IN STR U C TIO N S FOR D A IL Y T IM E AND POWER RECORD— TU B IN G SYSTEM D a te — M a in t a in a c tiv itie s a d a ily re c o rd o f th e v a r io u s and p o w e r u s e d . sap p r o d u c tio n Num ber o f H e l p e r s — A d a i l y t a b u l a t i o n o f t h e t o t a l n u m b e r o f p e r s o n s e n g a g e d i n m a p le s a p p r o d u c t i o n — e x c l u d i n g t h e o p e r a t o r , b u t i n c l u d i n g h i s im m e d ia t e f a m i l y . S p e c i f i c A c t i v i t y — Use a s h o r t p h r a s e fo rm e d ( e . g . , w a s h in g t u b i n g ) . to id e n tify th e P r e p a r a t io n — In c lu d e s la b o r tim e d e v o te d t o c le a n in g t u b i n g , t a p p i n g e q u ip m e n t , s n o w s h o e s , e t c . A ls o w h e re a p p r o p r i a t e t h e t i m e s p e n t i n t h e c l e a r i n g ro a d s . P o w er U sed— T h e a m o u n t o f t im e a re in o p e r a tio n : a. b. c. d. e. th e fo llo w in g p ie c e s w o rk p e r ­ and r e p a ir in g in c lu d e s o f woods o f e q u ip m e n t W asher (b u c k e t o r t u b i n g ) . Pow er T a p p e r. S n o w m o b ile . T ra c to r. Vacuum Pump. S e t-u p — In c lu d e s t h e la b o r tim e in v o lv e d i n s e t t in g - u p th e c o l ­ l e c t i o n s y s te m . T h i s t im e w i l l b e r e c o r d e d a p p r o p r i a t e l y a s fo llo w s : a. T a p p in g — T im e f o r b o r i n g t h e t a p h o l e , p e l l e t s , and in s e r t in g s p ile s . in s e r tin g g e r m id ic a l b. T u b in g L a y o u t a n d I n s t a l l a t i o n — T im e u s e d t o l a y o u t a n d i n s t a l l t h e t u b i n g s y s te m i n c l u d i n g t h e vacuum pump i n th e s u g a rb u s h . 140 7. c. C o lle c tio n c o lle c tio n T a n k P la c e m e n t — T im e u s e d t o i n s t a l l a n y ta n k s o r s to ra g e r e s e r v o ir s in th e s u g a rb u s h . d. O t h e r — T im e u s e d i n a n y o t h e r s e t - u p c a l l y c o v e re d in a t h r u d a b o v e . e. T r a v e l (T o a n d F r o m ) — T r a n s p o r a t i o n o f e q u ip m e n t t o t h e s u g a rb u s h w i l l b e in c lu d e d h e r e , as w i l l t r a v e l t im e o f c re w s t o a n d f r o m t h e s u g a r b u s h . Sap G a t h e r i n g — I n c l u d e s t h e l a b o r t i m e o f t h e re c o rd e d a p p r o p r ia t e ly as f o llo w s : n o t s p e c ifi­ sap c o lle c t io n phase a. M a in t e n a n c e — T im e s p e n t c h e c k in g f o r l e a k s , r e p a i r i n g , a n d m a i n t a i n i n g t h e c o l l e c t i o n s y s te m a n d a s s o c i a t e d e q u ip m e n t . b. O t h e r — T im e u s e d i n a n y o t h e r s a p g a t h e r i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y c o v e r e d u n d e r m a in t e n a n c e . c. T r a v e l (T o a n d F r o m ) — T r a n s p o r t a t i o n s u g a rb u s h . 8. Sap G a t h e r e d — T h e n u m b e r o f g a l l o n s 9. ° B r i x — The d a i l y 10. a c tiv ity t im e to o f sap g a th e re d a v e ra g e o f th e p e rc e n t s u g a r in th e a c tiv ity and fro m not th e each d a y . sap. T a k e -d o w n — I n c l u d e s t h e l a b o r t i m e i n v o l v e d i n d i s a s s e m b li n g t h e t u b i n g s y s te m a s w e l l a s t h e t i m e f o r c l e a n i n g a n d s t o r i n g e q u ip m e n t . T im e f o r t h i s a c t i v i t y w i l l b e r e c o r d e d a c c o r d in g t o th e fo llo w in g s u b d iv is io n : a. T u b in g S y s te m — T im e s p e n t d i s a s s e m b li n g t h e a n d b u n c h in g t h e e q u ip m e n t f o r t r a n s p o r t t o and s to r a g e a r e a . b. Collection Tanks— Time used to take down any collection ta n k s o r s to ra g e t u b i n g s y s te m th e c le a n in g r e s e r v o ir s . c. C l e a n in g a n d S t o r a g e — I n c l u d e s t h e l a b o r t i m e i n v o l v e d i n w a s h in g a n d d r y i n g o f t u b i n g , e t c . , a s w e l l a s t h e t im e u s e d i n c h e c k in g a n d s t o r i n g e q u ip m e n t. A m id s e a s o n t a n k w a s h in g w i l l be i n c l u d e d i n t h i s c a t e g o r y . d. O t h e r — W i l l i n c l u d e t h e l a b o r t im e i n v o l v e d i n a n y t a k e ­ down a c t i v i t y n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y c o v e r e d i n a t h r u c a b o v e . e. T r a v e l (T o an d F r o m ) — T r a n s p o r t a t i o n o f t h e e q u ip m e n t fro m t h e s u g a r b u s h t o t h e c l e a n i n g a n d s t o r a g e a r e a w i l l b e i n c l u d e d h e r e a s w i l l t r a v e l t i m e o f c r e w s t o a n d fro m th e s u g a rb u s h . APPENDIX J MAPLE SAP EQUIPMENT INVENTORY FORM — BUCKET SYSTEM APPENDIX J MAPLE SAP EQUIPMENT INVENTORY FORM— BUCKET SYSTEM FORM #4 CONFIDENTIAL 1 Item 2 Units 3 Type Bucket washer 141 Bucket washer power source horsepower Bucket paint gals. Clorox gals. Detergent ozs. Power tapper{s) Hand drill(s) Drill bits Hammers Spouts & spiles 3uckets 3ucket covers / 4 Quantity 5 Date Acquired 6 Cost or Value 7 Life Length MAPLE SAP EQUIPMENT INVENTORY FORM— BUCKET SYSTEM FORM #4 CONFIDENTIAL 1 Item Plastic collection bags Sathering pails Collection tanks Storage tanks - Intermed. Sap sled{s) or trailer(s) Tractor(s) Sap pump(s) Snowshoes Snowmobile(s) Snowmobile sled(s) 2 Units 3 Type 4 Quantity 5 Date Acquired 6 Cost or Value 7 Life Length APPENDIX K MAPLE SAP EQUIPMENT INVENTORY FORM — TUBING SYSTEM APPENDIX K MAPLE SAP EQUIPMENT INVENTORY FROM— TUBING SYSTEM FORM #5 CONFIDENTIAL 1 Item 2 Units 3 Type 4 Quantity 5 Date Acquired 6 Cost or Value Tubing washer 143 Tubing washer power source Horsepower Tlorox Gals • Detergent Ozs. £ Hand drill(s) Power tapper(s) Drill bits Jammer (Hatchet) Spouts S spiles 5/16" Tubing Feet 1/2" Tubing Feet 3/4" Tubing Feet 7 Life Length MAPLE SAP EQUIPMENT INVENTORY FORM— TUBING SYSTEM FORM #5 CONFIDENTIAL 1 Item 2 Units 1" Tubing Feet 1-1/2" Tubing Feet 2" Tubing Feet 3 Type 4 Quantity 5 Date Acquired 6 Cost or Value 7 Life Length 5/16" End caps 5/16" T's 3/4" Wyes L" Wyes 5/16" Connectors 1/2" Connectors 3/4" Connectors 1" Connectors 1-1/4" Connectors 1-1/2" Connectors 144 1/2" Wyes MAPLE SAP EQUIPMENT INVENTORY FORM--TUBING SYSTEM FORM #5 CONFIDENTIAL 1 Item 2 Units 3 Type 4 Quantity 5 Date Acquired 6 Cost or Value 7 Life Length 1/2" Clamps 3/4" Clamps 1" Clamps 1" x 3/4" Reducers 145 3/4" x 1/2" Reducers Pruning Shears Brake Pliers Clamp Pliers Spile Puller (Tubing) Screwdriver Dther Tubing Accessories tfo. 9 wire Feet FORM #5 MAPLE SAP EQUIPMENT INVENTORY FORM— TUBING SYSTEM CONFIDENTIAL 1 Item 2 Units 3 Type 4 Quantity 5 Date Acquired 6 Cost or Value 7 Life Length cfire ties Tence posts Marking tags (Avg. Ann.) Marking paint (Avg. Ann.) Quarts Dther marking equipment 146 Vacuum pump a accessories^- Bap pump(s) Storage (dumping) tank(s) Tractor Trailer (wagon) Gauges, vacuum gauge (trouble shooting). FORM #5 MAPLE SAP EQUIPMENT INVENTORY FORM— TUBING SYSTEM CONFIDENTIAL 1 Item Snowshoes Snowmobile(s) Snowmobile sled(s) 2 Units 3 Type 4 Quantity 5 Date Acquired 6 Cost or Value 7 Life Length APPENDIX L ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSES RECORD FORM APPENDIX L ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSES RECORD FORM CONFIDENTIAL 1 2 3 Quantity Unit Price Custom work & machine rental ******** ********** Insurance— workmen1s compensation ******** ********** Unemployment insurance ******** ********** Social Security ******** ********** Interest on borrowed money ******** ********** Real estate taxes ******** ********** Insurance— fire & theft ******** ********** Taphole pellets ******** ********** Repairs on equipment ******** ********** Item 4 Total Cost 148 APPENDIX M STANDARD EQUIPMENT LIST— BUCKET SYSTEMS Table M-l.— Standard Equipment List— Bucket Systems. P r ic e S o u rc e P r ic e (1 9 7 3 ) Ite m $ B u cket W asher P o w er T a p p e r H a tc h e t 1 3 0 .0 0 ea. a 1 p e r o p e r a tio n 1 9 3 .8 5 ea. b 1 p e r o p e r a tio n 9 .8 9 ea. c 1 p e r o p e r a tio n .1 7 ea. a 1 p e r ta p h o le 1 .3 0 ea. a 1 p e r ta p h o le .4 0 ea. a 1 p e r ta p h o le 6 . 50 e a . a 2 p e r c r e w m em ber p l u s one s p a r e d P ro ra te d usage S p ile Bucket C over G a t h e r in g P a i l s 6 ,1 8 5 .0 0 T ra c to rs C o lle c tio n Tank Q u a n tity 2 2 0 .0 0 ea. ea. a c c o r d in g to a 1 e a c h — 1 ,0 0 0 ta p h o le s o r le s s 2 each — 1 ,0 0 0 t o 2 ,5 0 0 ta p h o le s 3 e a c h — m o re t h a n 2 , 5 0 0 ta p h o le s Wagon 2 6 6 .0 0 e a . c 1 p e r c o lle c tio n Sap S t o r a g e Tanks .1 6 5 p e r g a l . c 2 g a l. o f s to ra g e cap a c i t y p e r ta p h o le e P ro ra te d usage S n o w m o b ile a n d S le d 1 ,0 0 0 .0 0 ea. R e y n o ld s S u g a r B u s h , A n iw a , H fi H S a l e s , S e a rs , M ason, W is c o n s in . L a n s in g , ^ In te r n a tio n a l H a rv e s te r C o ., e A lie v a 's S p o rts a c c o r d in g M ic h ig a n . R o e b u c k an d C o . , a n d M a r in e S a le s M ic h ig a n . 149 M ic h ig a n . L a n s in g , M i c h ig a n , and S e r v ic e , ta n k L a n s in g , to APPENDIX N STANDARD EQUIPMENT LIST— TUBING SYSTEMS Table N-l.— Standard Equipment List— Tubing Systems. P r ic e (1 9 7 3 ) Ite m T u b in g W ash e r $ P r ic e S o u rc e 7 5 .0 0 e a . Q u a n tity a 1 p e r o p e r a tio n b 1 p e r o p e ra tio n 1 9 3 .8 5 ea. H a tc h e t 9 .8 9 ea. 1 p e r o p e r a tio n P r u n in g S h e a rs 2 .8 8 ea. 1 p e r o p e r a tio n B ra k e P l i e r s 2 .4 7 ea. 1 p e r o p e r a tio n Clam p P l i e r s 2 .7 9 ea. 1 p e r o p e r a tio n S c r e w d r iv e r 1 .6 0 ea. 1 p e r o p e r a tio n S lip -J o in t P lie r s 1 .8 8 e a . 1 p e r o p e r a tio n S p ile P u l l e r 4 .5 0 ea. d 1 p e r o p e r a tio n T y in g T o o l 1 .5 0 e a . d 1 p e r o p e ra tio n .2 0 e a . d 1 p e r ta p h o le d 1 3 .6 2 P o w er T a p p e r S p ile 5 /1 6 " T u b in g .0 4 5 /ft. ft. 1 /2 " T u b in g .0 3 5 /ft. 1 .1 7 3 /4 " T u b in g .0 6 /ft. .8 1 ft. p e r ta p h o le c .1 5 ft. p e r ta p h o le d 1 .1 3 d .0 2 p e r t a p h o l e 1" T u b in g 5 /1 6 " .1 0 /ft. .1 0 e a . T ft. p e r ta p h o le p e r ta p h o le p e r ta p h o le 1 .0 0 ea. C o n n e c to r .1 7 ea. 1 p e r 100' tu b in g of 1 /2 " C o n n e c to r .2 0 e a . 1 p er 100' t u b in g of 3 /4 " 1" C o n n e c to r .2 5 ea. 1 per o f 1" 5 /1 6 " .0 3 ea. d 1 p e r 3 /4 " wye .6 5 ea. d 1 per of 3 /4 " Wye 1 /2 " 3 /4 " End Cap 1" x 3 / 4 " Reducer 150 100' 500' tu b in g 3 /4 " tu b in g 151 P r ic e S o u rc e P r ic e (1973) It e m 3 /4 " x 1 / 2 ” R educer .4 0 ea. d 1 /2 " Clam ps .0 5 ea. d 3 /4 " clam p s .0 5 ea. Q u a n tity 3 p e r 1 ,0 0 0 * tu b in g 2 p e r 1 /2 " c o n n e c to r, one p e r 3 /4 " x 1 /2 " re d u c e r 2 p e r 3 /4 " w ye, 2 p e r 3 / 4 " c o n n e c t o r , one p e r re d u c e r .0 1 2 /ft. #9 A e r i a l W ir e 1 fo o t p e r fo o t o f an d 1" t u b i n g (S te e l) 1 .1 1 e a . c 1 per 25 * M a r k in g T ag s .0 5 e a . d 8 per 3 /4 " Post Sap S t o r a g e T a n k s o f 1 /2 " 2 g a l. c ity . 1 6 5 /g a l. 3 /4 " o f #9 w i r e wye o f s to ra g e capa­ p e r ta p h o le Vacuum Pump A s s e m b ly $ 5 8 - $ 5 1 8 e a . e 1 p e r o p e r a tio n T ra c to r f P ro ra te d usage a c c o r d in g to P ro ra te d usage a c c o r d in g to 6 ,1 8 5 .0 0 e a . S n o w m o b ile and S le d 1 ,0 0 0 .0 0 ea. R e y n o ld s S u g a r B u s h , H Si H S a l e s , 'S e a r s , M aso n , A n iw a , W is c o n s in . M ic h ig a n . R o ebuck and C o . , S u g a rb u s h S u p p l i e s , L a n s in g , L a n s in g , 'C o o p e r a to r s u s in g t u b i n g M ic h ig a n . M ic h ig a n , s y s te m . I n t e r n a t i o n a l H a r v e s t e r C o . , L a n s in g , A lie v a 's M ic h ig a n . S p o r t s and M a r in e S a le s M ic h ig a n . and S e r v i c e , L a n s in g , APPENDIX O COMPUTATION OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS— POWERED EQUIPMENT A P P ENDIX O COMPUTATION OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS— POWERED EQUIPMENT T ra c to rs F u e l and l u b r i c a n t as w e l l as r e p a i r c o s ts f o r t r a c t o r s co m p u te d a c c o r d in g t o a p r o c e d u r e d e s c r i b e d i n B o w ers ( 1 9 7 0 ) . w e re F u e l and lu b r ic a n t c o s t m u lt ip lie r x l i s t p r ic e x p r ic e /g a llo n c o s t p e r h o u r « ---------------------- * ----------- $ 1 , 0 0 0 ------------------ ----------- ------------ .7 9 x $ 6 ,1 8 5 X $ .1 8 3 1 c o s t p e r h o u r = --------------- $ i 7 o 0 0 ------------------ R e p a ir s o f th e ____ = $ .8 9 a n d m a in t e n a n c e R e p a irs o v e r t h e l i s t p r ic e . to ta l $ 6 ,1 8 5 life of x 1 .2 0 a tra c to r a v e ra g e 120 p e rc e n t = $ 7 ,4 2 2 S7 4 2 2 c o s t p e r h o u r = j^ T o O O = 5 - 6 2 T o ta l o p e r a tio n a n d m a in t e n a n c e ^ " Q u o ta tio n fr o m c o s t p e r h o u r = $ .8 9 Swans F u e l S e r v i c e , 152 + $ .6 2 D a n s v ille , = $ 1 .5 1 . M i c h ig a n . 153 S n o w m o b ile s O p e r a t i n g a n d m a in t e n a n c e c o s t s w e r e b a s e d on c o s t d a t a s u p p l i e d b y t h e E a s t e r n R e g io n o f t h e U .S . F o r e s t S e r v i c e . 2 A c c o r d in g t o F o r e s t S e r v i c e r e c o r d s , 6 7 s n o w m o b ile s g e n e r a t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g a v e r a g e c o s t s : O p e r a tin g c o s t: $ M a in t e n a n c e C o s t : T o ta l .3 0 p e r h o u r 1 .8 6 p e r h o u r $ 2 .1 6 Vacuum Pumps O p e r a t i n g c o s t s f o r vacuum pumps w e r e b a s e d on t h e s i z e o f t h e m o to r u s e d t o p o w e r t h e pum p. A t a c o s t p e r k ilo w a tt h o u r o f $ .0 2 2 5 ,3 t h is w o rk e d o u t t o b e : M o to r sepow er O p e r a tin g C o s t P e r Hour 1 /4 1 /3 1 /2 3 /4 $ .0 0 6 8 .0 0 9 0 .0 1 2 9 .0 1 8 8 .0 2 2 5 .0 3 3 8 .0 4 5 0 .0 6 7 5 .1 0 1 2 .1 5 7 5 1 1 1 /2 2 .0 3 .0 5 7 1 /2 Vacuum pump m a in t e n a n c e c o s t s w e r e b a s e d o n c o o p e r a t o r s ' e x p e r ie n c e f o r t h e tw o s e a s o n s o f d a t a c o l l e c t i o n . T h e ir a v e ra g e c o s t ea c h y e a r f o r r e p a i r s an d m a in t e n a n c e w as 2 . 5 p e r c e n t- o f t h e v a l u e o f t h e vacuum pump a s s e m b ly . 2 B re o n , D u an e G . , ^ Q u o t a t io n 1972. P e r s o n a l C o m m u n ic a tio n s . fro m C o n s u m e rs P o w e r C om pany, L a n s in g , M ic h ig a n . 154 Bucket and Tubing Washers O p e r a t in g c o s t s f o r b u c k e t a n d t u b i n g w a s h e rs w e r e c o m p u te d i n t h e same m a n n e r as t h o s e f o r vacuum pum ps. The c h a rg e s f o r eac h w e re : n il. Bucket Washer— 1/3 H.P. $.0090 per hour Tubing Washer— 1/6 H.P. .0048 per hour M a in te n a n c e on t h e s e tw o p i e c e s o f e q u ip m e n t i s p r a c t i c a l l y As t h e r e w as n o b a s i s f o r a n y c h a r g e s , n o n e w e r e m ad e. APPENDIX P MATERIAL EXPENSES— ANNUAL BASIS Table P-l.— Material Expenses— Annual Basis. Ite m P r ic e S o u rc e P r ic e Q u a n tity G e r m ic id a l P e l l e t $ .0 1 each a one p e r ta p h o le D r ill B it $ 2 .2 5 a one p e r 500 ta p h o le s each C lo r o x B u c k e ts $ . 5 4 /g a l. b 1 .6 + .0 0 0 8 h o le s ) ^ (n u m b e r t a p - T u b in g $ . 5 4 /g a l. b 3 .1 + .0 0 5 h o le s ) ^ B u c k e ts $ 2 .5 9 /o z . b 3 4 . 4 + .0 0 9 h o l e s ) <3 T u b in g $ 2 . 5 9 /o z . b n o t used W ir e T i e s $ .0 0 4 each c one p e r W ash e r B ru s h $ 1 6 .0 0 a o n e p e r 6 , 0 0 0 w a s h in g s S p ra y P a i n t $ .9 9 /1 3 ca n b 4 .3 + .0 2 5 h o le s ) ^ (n u m b e r t a p - D e te rg e n t a R e y n o ld s b c each oz. 3' (n u m b e r t a p - o f #9 w ir e (n u m b e r t a p - S u g a r B u s h , A n iw a , W is c o n s in . . . , M e rg e r* s T h r i f t y A c re s , L a n s i n g , M ic h ig a n . Sugarbush Supplies, Lansing, Michigan. ^ B a s is : c o r r e la tio n s tu d y ' s c o o p e ra to rs . a n a ly s is 155 o f a c tu a l q u a n titie s used by th e APPENDIX Q COST OF MAPLE SAP PRODUCTION BY OPERATION Table Q-l.— Cost of Maple Sap Production, Operation B-l, Bucket System. Season Item Number of tapholes Gallons of sap 1972 1973 500 500 8, 365 4,005 16.73 Gallons sap, p e r 'taphole 8.01 Dollars Management 45. 00 45. 00 Fixed equipment 327.88 306.88 Equipment operation and maintenance 104.42 6 6.26 Material expenses 10. 70 10. 70 Taphole rental 50.00 50. 00 508.27 358.28 1,046.27 837.12 183.00 183.00 1,229.27 1,020.12 Labor (without workmen's compensation) Subtotal Workmen's compensation premium Total cost 156 157 Table Q-2.— Cost of Maple Sap Production, Operation B— 8 , Bucket System. Season Item 1972a Number of tapholes • • Gallons of sap • • Gallons sap per taphole « * 1973 800 7,700 9.62 Dollars Management • » 51. 00 Fixed equipment • « 409.75 Equipment operation and maintenance • • 106.44 Material expenses • • 17. 00 Taphole rental * » 80. 00 Labor (without w o r k m e n 's compensation) ■ • 566.04 • « 1,230.23 • * * • Subtotal Workmen's compensation premium Total Cost aNot in the study in 19 72. 183.00 1,413.23 158 Table Q-3.— Cost of Maple Sap Production, Operation B-2a, Bucket System. Season Item Number of tapholes Gallons of sap Gallons sap per taphole 1972 1973 850 850 14,055 5, 285 16. 54 6.22 Dollars 51. 00 51. 00 418.21 398.29 Equipment operation and maintenance 90. 51 54. 27 Material expenses 17. 60 17. 60 Taphole rental 85. 00 85. 00 380.54 208.82 1,042.86 814.98 183.00 183.00 1,225.86 997.98 Management Fixed equipment Labor (without workmen's compensation) Subtotal Workmen's compensation premium Total cost 159 Table Q-4.— Cost of Maple Sap Production, Operation B-2b, Bucket System. Season Item Number of tapholes Gallons of sap Gallons sap per taphole 1972 1973 920 960 15,030 9 ,256 16. 34 9.64 Dollars Management 51.00 54. 00 Fixed equipment 446.22 443.25 Equipment operation and maintenance 113.84 92. 80 Material expenses 18. 55 19. 05 Taphole rental 92. 00 96. 00 699.07 465.34 1,420.68 1 ,170.44 183.00 183.00 1,603.68 1,353.44 Labor (without workmen's compensation) Subtotal Workmen's compensation premium Total cost 160 Table Q-5.— Cost of Maple Sap Production, Operation B-4, Bucket System. Season Item Number of tapholes Gallons of sap Gallons sap per taphole 1972 1973 960 970 15,980 8,400 16. 65 8. 66 Dollars 54.00 54.00 434.33 426.29 Equipment operation and maintenance 76. 47 51. 17 Material expenses 19. 05 19. 20 Taphole rental 96. 00 97. 00 305.81 378.78 985.66 1 ,026.44 183.00 183.00 1,168.66 1,209.44 Management Fixed equipment Labor (without workmen's compensation) Subtotal Workmen’s compensation premium Total cost 161 Table Q-6.— Cost of Maple Sap Production, Operation B-9, Bucket System. Season Item 19 72a 1973 Number of tapholes * • 1, 550 Gallons of sap • • 9 ,030 Gallons sap per taphole « 9 5. 83 Dollars Management • 9 63. 00 Fixed equipment • 9 668.54 Equipment operation and maintenance * * 62.45 Material expenses • • 29. 20 Taphole rental • • 155.00 Labor (without w o r k m e n ’s compensation) « * 433.54 • • 1,411.73 * • 183.00 * * 1, 594 . 73 Subtotal Workmen's compensation premium Total cost aNot in the study in 197 2. 162 Table Q-7.— Cost of Maple Sap Production, Operation B-4a, Bucket System. Season Item 197 2a 1973 Number of tapholes • 1,950 Gallons of sap * 14,670 Gallons sap per taphole » 7. 52 Dollars Management ■ 72.00 Fixed equipment • 793.14 Equipment operation and maintenance • 88.88 Material expenses • 36.80 Taphole rental • 195.00 • 563.39 • 1,749.21 ■ 183.00 • 1,932.21 Labor (without workmen's compensation) Subtotal Workmen's compensation premium Total cost aNot in the study in 197 2. 163 Table Q-8.— Cost of Maple Sap Production, Operation B — 5b, Bucket System. Season Item 1972 1973 Number of tapholes 1, 650 1,978 Gallons of sap 6,900 12,275 Gallons sap per taphole 4.18 6.21 Dollars Management 66.00 72 .00 553.83 786.78 Equipment operation and maintenance 56. 28 63. 26 Material expenses 32. 75 37. 18 Taphole rental 165.00 197.80 Labor (without workmen's compensation) 473.82 514.10 1,347.68 1,671.12 183.00 183.00 1,530.68 1,854.12 Fixed equipment Subtotal Workmen's compensation premium Total cost 164 Table Q-9.— Cost of Maple Sap Production, Operation B-4b, Bucket System. Season Item 1972a 1973 Number of tapholes . . 2,000 Gallons of sap . . 22,350 Gallons sap per taphole . . 11.18 Dollars Management . . 72.00 Fixed equipment . . 883.84 Equipment operation and maintenance . . 231.02 Material expenses . . 37.45 Taphole rental . . 200.00 Labor (without workmen's compensation) . . 1,141.62 . . 2,565.93 . , 183.00 . . 2,748.93 Subtotal Workmen's compensation premium Total cost aNot in the study in 1972. 165 Table Q-10.— Cost of Maple Sap Production, Operation B— 6, Bucket System. Season Item Number of tapholes Gallons of sap Gallons sap per taphole 1972 1973 2,025 2, 025 32,170 15,730 15. 89 7.77 Dollars Management 72. 00 72. 00 Fixed equipment 881.16 852.11 Equipment operation and maintenance 201.68 148.99 37. 75 37. 75 Taphole rental 202.50 202.50 Labor (without workmen's compensation) 969.37 817.79 2,364.46 2 ,131.14 183.00 183.00 2,547.46 2, 314.14 Material expenses Subtotal Workmen's compensation premium Total cost 166 Table Q-ll.— Cost of Maple Sap Production, Operation B-5a, Bucket System. Season Item Number of tapholes Gallons of sap Gallons sap per taphole 1972 1973 2,100 2,100 14,780 12,215 7.04 5. 82 Dollars 75.00 75. 00 Fixed equipment 924.52 851.72 Equipment operation and maintenance 149.14 125.88 41. 05 41. 05 Taphole rental 210.00 210.00 Labor (without workmen 1s compensation) 959.30 639.71 2,359.01 1,943.36 183.00 183.00 2,542.01 2 , 126.36 Management Material expenses Subtotal Workmen's compensation premium Total cost 167 Table Q - 12.— Cost of Maple Sap Production, Operation B-7, Bucket System. Season Item Number of tapholes Gallons of sap Gallons sap per taphole 1972 1973 2 ,605 2, 685 49,975 29,897 19.18 11. 13 Dollars Management Fixed equipment Equipment operation and maintenance Material expenses Taphole rental Labor (without workmen's compensation) Subtotal Workmen's compensation premium Total cost 84. 00 84. 00 1,194.51 1,114.49 346.45 166.22 50. 00 51.05 260.50 268.50 1,654.13 1,402.91 3,589.59 3,087.17 183.00 183.00 3,772.59 3,270.17 168 Si 1 Table Q-13.— Cost of Maple Sap Production, Operation Tubing System. Season Item Number of tapholes Gallons of sap Gallons sap per taphole 1972 1973 300 300 1, 400 1,150 4.67 3.83 Dollars 39. 00 39. 00 129.80 126.76 Equipment operation and maintenance 7. 87 2. 11 Material expenses 8.97 8.97 30. 00 30. 00 154.76 114.48 370.40 321.32 183.00 183.00 553.40 504.32 Management Fixed equipment Taphole rental Labor (without workmen's compensation) Subtotal Workmen's compensation premium Total cost 169 Table Q-14.— Cost of Maple Sap Production, Operation T— l a , Tubing System. Season Item Number of tapholes Gallons of sap Gallons sap per taphole 1972 1973 550 550 5,960 1, 640 10. 84 2.98 Dollars 45. 00 45. 00 197.35 201.48 7. 51 13. 95 Material expenses 15. 16 15. 16 Taphole rental 55. 00 55. 00 300.65 163.24 620.67 493.83 183.00 183.00 803.67 676. 83 Management Fixed equipment Equipment operation and maintenance Labor (without workmen's compensation) Subtotal Workmen's compensation premium Total cost 170 Table Q-15.— Cost of Maple Sap Production, Operation T ~ 3 ' Tubing System. Season Item 1972a 1973 Number of tapholes * m 600 Gallons of sap • ■ 2, 854 Gallons sap per taphole * m 4. 76 Dollars 45. 00 Management m m Fixed equipment • « 209.21 Equipment operation and maintenance • * 9. 14 Material expenses * * 15. 92 Taphole rental • • 60. 00 Labor (without workmen's compensation) 9 m 109.18 # • 448.45 • m 183.00 • • 631.45 Subtotal Workmen's compensation premium Total cost aNot in the study in 197 2. 171 Table Q-16.— Cost of Maple Sap Production, Operation .T-2a, Tubing System. Season Item Number of tapholes Gallons of sap Gallons sap per taphole 1972 1973 900 900 7, 370 7, 972 8 .19 8.86 Dollars Management 51. 00 51. 00 285.43 285.43 6. 92 7. 69 Material expenses 20. 65 20. 65 Taphole rental 90.00 90. 00 152.64 146.81 606.64 601.58 183.00 183.00 789.64 784.58 Fixed equipment Equipment operation and maintenance Labor (without wor km en ’s compensation) Subtotal Workmen's compensation premium Total cost 172 Table Q-17.— Cost of Maple Sap Production, Operation T-2b, Tubing System. Season Item 1972 1973 Number of tapholes 1, 000 1, 000 Gallons of sap 9 ,835 6, 040 Gallons sap per taphole 9. 84 6. 04 Dollars 54. 00 54. 00 312.40 317.98 Equipment operation and maintenance 12. 67 18.80 Material expenses 22.18 22. 18 Taphole rental 100.00 100.00 Labor (without workmen's compens at ion) 265.00 204.05 766.25 717.01 183.00 183.00 949.25 900.01 Management Fixed equipment Subtotal Workmen's compensation premium Total cost 173 Table Q-18.— Cost of Maple Sap Production, Operation T-5, Tubing System. Season Item 1972 1973 Number of tapholes 1,100 1, 000 Gallons of sap 5,950 4, 550 Gallons sap per taphole 5. 41 4. 55 Dollars 54. 00 54. 00 439.37 312.83 Equipment operation and maintenance 61. 90 11. 63 Material expenses 26. 11 22.18 Taphole rental 110.00 100.00 Labor (without workmen's compensation) 167.48 251.22 858.86 751.86 183.00 183.00 1,041.86 934.86 Management Fixed equipment Subtotal Workmen's compensation premium Total cost 174 Table Q-19.— Cost of Maple Sap Production, Operation T-8, Tubing System. Season Item 1972 a Number of tapholes • • Gallons of sap • • Gallons sap per taphole • * 1973 1,400 17,710 12 .65 Dollars 60. 00 Management - Fixed equipment * • 417.40 Equipment operation and maintenance « • 21. 17 Material expenses * * 30. 79 Taphole rental • * 140.00 Labor (without workmen's compensation) # * 390.08 Subtotal Workmen's compensation premium Total cost aNot in the study in 1972. * * • • » * 1,059.44 183.00 1,242.44 175 Table Q-20.— Cost of Maple Sap Production, Operation T-3a, Tubing System. Season Item 1972 a 1973 Number of tapholes • • 1, 445 Gallons of sap • ■ 27,775 Gallons sap per taphole • * 19. 22 Dollars 63. 00 Management • • Fixed equipment * • 440.01 Equipment operation and maintenance • * 29 .52 Material expenses • ■ 31. 45 Taphole rental • • 144.50 * * 418.70 * * 1,127.18 • • 183.00 • • 1,310.18 Labor (without w o r k m e n 's compensation) Subtotal Workmen's compensation premium Total cost aNot in the study in 1972. 176 Table Q-21.— Cost of Maple Sap Production, Operation T-4a, Tubing System. Season Item Number of tapholes Gallons of sap Gallons sap per taphole 1972 1973 1,800 1, 800 14,735 15,944 8. 19 8. 86 Dollars 69.00 69. 00 530.35 521.97 Equipment operation and maintenance 17.54 14 .67 Material expenses 39. 31 39. 31 Taphole rental 180.00 180.00 Labor (without workmen's compensation) 563.92 499.79 1,400.12 1,324.74 183.00 183.00 1,583.12 1,507.74 Management Fixed equipment Subtotal Workmen's compensation premium Total cost 177 Table Q-22.— Cost of Maple Sap Production, Operation T — 4b , Tubing System. Season Item Number of tapholes Gallons of sap Gallons sap per taphole 1972 1973 2,200 2 ,000 17,700 5,651 8.05 2.83 Dollars 75. 00 72. 00 697.81 689.02 Equipment operation and maintenance 61. 67 80. 36 Material expenses 47. 86 42.41 220.00 200.00 Management Fixed equipment Taphole rental Labor (without wor k me n's compensation) Subtotal Workmen's compensation premium Total cost 443.08 448.38 1,545.42 1 ,532.17 183.00 183.00 1,728.42 1,715.17 178 Tabid Q-23.— Cost of Maple Sap Production, Operation T-6, Tubing System. Season Item 1972 1973 Number of tapholes 1,960 2,011 Gallons of sap 9,075 15,200 Gallons sap per taphole 4.63 7.56 Dollars 72. 00 72. 00 610.29 624.77 Equipment operation and maintenance 44. 07 51. 14 Material expenses 41. 81 42.68 Taphole rental 196.00 201.10 Labor (without workmen’s compensation) 316.94 307.93 1,281.11 1,299.62 183.00 183.00 1,464.11 1,482.62 Management Fixed equipment Subtotal Workmen 1s compensation premium Total cost 179 Table Q-24.— Cost of Maple Sap Production, Operation T-7, Tubing System. Season Item Number of tapholes Gallons of sap Gallons sap per taphole 1972 1973 2, 550 2 ,850 13,100 17,950 5.14 6. 30 Dollars 81. 00 87. 00 Fixed equipment 904.05 923.14 Equipment operation and maintenance 121.95 95. 77 55.62 60. 35 255.00 285.00 1,182.96 1,232.78 2,600.58 2,684.04 183.00 183.00 2,783.58 2,867.04 Management Material expenses Taphole rental Labor (without workmen's compensation) Subtotal Workmen's compensation premium Total cost