• Mossy Feathers (She/They)@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    129
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    While most sugaring operations used to rely on buckets and spiles, more are upgrading to vacuum tubing systems able to suck more sap from the tree over longer periods.

    How much you wanna bet this is gonna be bad in the long-run? I’m predicting that increasing the sap harvest from individual trees is going to damage the trees; and while the effects may not be seen in the next couple years, I bet eventually the trees will start getting sick and start dying because they don’t have enough sap.

  • Minotaur@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    8 months ago

    I make syrup out of the tree(s) in my yard.

    It’s true. It was such a weird year weather wise that I only got about 2 bottles of syrup. Normally I can get like… 8-10?

    A lot of people don’t really know how sap production works, but it really is a pretty limited window

    That being said, if you live outside of a maple tree (or some other kinds), go buy a $20 tap or whatever from Amazon. It’s fun and surprisingly piss easy to make syrup at home.

      • Fondots@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        8 months ago

        I have no real firsthand experience making syrup, but one of my scout leaders years ago used to make his own so I picked up some bits and pieces from him.

        When it comes out of the tree, it’s very watery, I’ve never had the chance to try it myself but I’m told that it’s very refreshing, and I believe it’s actually lower in sugar than something like coconut water.

        Then you boil it down to concentrate it into a syrup.

        And as I understand it, that’s pretty much it, I suspect at some point it maybe goes through a sieve or a filter of some kind to catch any particulates that might be in there.

        I don’t know if it’s a common practice, but my scout leader had also rigged up a reverse osmosis system to cut down on how long he needed to boil it. Normally with a RO system, it puts out clean water and you throw away the concentrated waste product, but in his case the “waste” is what he wants, not quite syrup, but more concentrated maple water that requires less boiling to make syrup.

      • Minotaur@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        8 months ago

        Sap itself is essentially water. You probably… could just drink it alone but don’t. It’s weird and a little gross.

        You basically just pour it all in a vat and boil it down. It boils down at a 40:1 ratio. 40 gallons of sap is about one gallon of syrup.

        You just boil it until it reaches the correct sugar concentration, or until you’re pretty satisfied

          • Minotaur@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I mean, I haven’t tried it in any significant quality, it’s incredibly close to normal water at that concentration. Maybe a bit woody, really not sweet.

            It’s also just unprocessed tree-water you get from a bucket and I’m not an expert on the health and safety of all that but yunno, to me it’s something I’d want at least boiled first.

            • QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              It didn’t seem that different from like… tree fruit juice, but based on some of the comments I’ve gotten, it doesn’t sound like it would be very pleasant.

  • naturalgasbad
    cake
    OP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    Maybe, just maybe, we should be considering the impacts of increased natural gas consumption on climate change? Although direct CO2 emissions from burning are about half that of coal, natural gas (i.e., methane) is a GHG that’s 80x more potent than CO2 over 20 years and about 30x more potent over 100 years.

    Meanwhile, a significant proportion of natural gas is lost during transmission due to leakage… Figures, then, that the symptoms of climate change seem to be escalating just as natural gas is being used to replace coal.

    Burning natural gas does have an important benefit: it burns much cleaner, which reduces particulate emissions.

    • Kalkaline @leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      8 months ago

      Maybe we should switch to clean, renewable energy wherever possible and save important, nonrenewable hydrocarbons for future generations. There may not be an energy breakthrough that comes along to replace them.

    • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Nuclear! And as much renewables as we possibly can. But preferably while not entirely wrecking river ecosystems with dams.