The past ten years been a tremendous time for the entire maple industry.  We have seen massive expansion in taps and the yields per tap have been steadily rising.  Markets for syrup have been growing and prices have been relatively high and stable.  There have been some ups and downs (as expected), but overall the industry has been growing rapidly and is poised for further growth. 

Despite the positive developments, there is some cause for concern. The change in the exchange rate between the U.S. and Canada caused bulk syrup prices to fall this past year, significantly reducing incomes and profitability for American sugarmakers.  Although expansion has continued in some places, it has not kept up at the same robust rate as in previous years.  Markets continue to grow, yet the rapid rate of tap expansion has many sugarmakers worried that we may be producing more syrup than the market can handle. If a large surplus were to develop beyond what the Federation can absorb with their “strategic reserve”, prices would fall even further and many sugarmakers would no longer have profitable operations. 

The Federation has been largely responsible for much of the expansion we have experienced in the U.S. and other Canadian provinces. By setting minimum prices that were above historical rates and buying up surplus syrup every year, the Federation has made it profitable for new sugaring operations to get started and existing operations to expand. When prices are relatively high and stable, banks are more willing to lend money and individuals are more likely to want to invest their own money.  Without the stability provided by the Federation, it is unlikely that the U.S. and other provinces would have expanded so much in recent years.

We can also thank the Federation for a lot of the growth in markets over the past decade.  They have invested a great deal of money in to generic promotion of pure maple syrup throughout the world, helping to sell more pure maple to more people throughout North America and beyond.  They have also funded significant research on the health benefits of pure maple. Without the Federation’s investments, Dr. Navindra Seeram would not have been able to publish 18 articles over the past 5 years exploring various health properties of pure maple sap and syrup. Given the importance of this research to developing new markets for all producers, we should be especially grateful to Dr. Seeram and the Federation for their efforts on this front.

Producers in Quebec pay 12 cents per pound for all bulk syrup produced to go in to research, promotion, and administration of their programs. If the producers had not joined forces many years ago to agree on these contributions, the industry would never have advanced the way it has. Of course the Federation has focused their monies on projects that will primarily benefit the producers and packaging companies within Quebec.  People can argue about whether they spend their money in the most efficient manner, but one cannot refute that they have had a major influence both inside and outside of Quebec.  Some producers in Quebec may not like being subject to the Federation’s rules and fee structure, yet all producers outside of Quebec have benefited from their activities. 

It is uncertain whether producers in the Federation will continue to support programs that benefit others outside of Quebec. Many members are upset that they have to contribute 12 cents per pound of all the syrup they produce while sugarmakers in the U.S. and other Canadian provinces contribute very little (if anything) to research and promotion.  There are a number of Quebec producers who are especially upset that they aren’t allowed to expand their own operations (due to the quota system) even though their contributions and policies are spurring tremendous development outside of Quebec.  Put yourselves in the shoes of a Quebec producer and ask yourself this simple question: “Would I be happy footing the bill for research and promotion while limiting my own production as I sit by and watch other sugarmakers outside of Quebec expanding as a result of my contributions?” I think the answer is clear. What to do about this situation is not so apparent.

At a meeting this past summer of the International Maple Syrup Institute, Simon Trepanier, Executive Director of the Federation of Maple Syrup Producers of Quebec, gave a very informative presentation explaining the predicament of Quebec producers. Many feel that they no longer want to invest in generic maple promotion in the U.S. because it is helping U.S. producers to expand and sell more pure maple syrup.  They are reluctant to cooperate with other jurisdictions on joint promotion of pure maple without seeing contributions from others outside of Quebec.  There will never be an organization with the power and policies of the Federation in the U.S., so the question remains: what can we do to support and advance the industry forward? 

There has been talk in recent years about developing a “check-off” program for maple syrup similar to other commodities.  These programs involve all producers paying in a small percentage of their gross sales that goes in to a pool of funds administered by the industry and overseen by the USDA.  Over 20 other agricultural commodities, including two of our major competitors (corn and honey), already have very successful check-off programs and are using their resources to gain a competitive edge in the market. An idea of a check-off for the maple industry has been highly controversial and I am skeptical that it would ever come to fruition for a number of reasons.  Check-offs are very hard to get started and would take many years to ever materialize, with lots of internal struggles along the way. They also limit the way monies can be spent and there are large challenges with how funds would be collected between the U.S. and Canada. For these reasons and others, I think the pursuit of a check-off program for the maple industry would be a mistake. 

On the other hand, we already have two long-standing organizations devoted to ensuring the sustainability of our industry- the North American Maple Syrup Council and the International Maple Syrup Institute.  These organizations are full of great people who have dedicated a lot of their own time and resources towards helping their fellow producers, packers, and equipment manufacturers. They have grand plans and could do much more, but their funding is extremely limited. If we were able to generate substantial funding for these organizations whose cost was shared proportionally among all sectors of the maple industry, the impact these organizations could have towards the future sustainability of the entire industry would be tremendous.

The rest of this article contains my “open letter” to all manufacturers of maple sugaring equipment and containers with some idea on how to generate additional funding. I am proposing that all manufacturers and distributors of jugs for maple syrup production raise their price by 1 penny and put that in to the North American Maple Syrup Council Research Fund. I also believe that every equipment manufacturer should raise their spout price by one penny and put the funds collected in to the International Maple Syrup Institute to help with marketing and promotion efforts.  Additional details are contained in the paragraphs to follow… 

Penny per container

For many years the North American Maple Syrup Council has received a penny per container from many sugarmakers who agree to make the additional donation while buying jugs from Sugarhill Containers or Bacon Jugs. It is a voluntary program and many producers either purposefully or accidentally forget to check the box on the order form.  Thus, the monies generated have been minimal and not enough to support a substantial research fund. Starting in 2009, the Research Alliance program provided a means for others to contribute funds and while this has certainly helped to widen the donor pool and solicit additional donations, more needs to be done.  In a small, preliminary survey of sugarmakers, I found that 93% of sugarmakers had purchased containers to put their syrup in during the last year, 96% could not remember the exact price they paid per container, and 100% said they would still have bought their containers if they cost an additional penny each. So if sugarmakers by and large don’t know the price they are buying their containers for and would be willing to spend an extra penny, doesn’t it make sense to just make this program mandatory?  Rather than relying on people to remember to check an extra box on their order form, if everybody just paid an extra penny for the jugs there would be significantly more funds for research. Sugarhill Containers has been a tremendous supporter of this program and their new CEO has expressed interest in continuing their support of the program. If we’re able to convince other container companies to get on board, there would be a great deal more funding for research that will help our industry prosper well in to the future. 

Penny per spout

Recent research has proven the effectiveness of utilizing a new spout every year in order to collect more sap from a taphole. Producers who are buying a new spout are making a wise investment to spend a little bit of money in order to significantly boost their sap yields. When I asked the same sugarmakers about their spout purchasing, 85% said they purchased a new spout every year, 89% could not remember the exact price they paid for the spout, and 100% would have still purchased the spout if it cost an additional penny. It makes a lot of sense to spend 15-40 cents on a new spout in the winter in order to produce a lot more maple syrup come springtime.  Doesn’t it make even more sense to spend an additional penny on that spout so that you can be better assured that you’ll be able to sell your syrup at a profitable level? If we were able to convince all of the manufacturers to raise their prices by one penny that could generate an estimated $200,000 annually (assuming 20 million new spouts are purchased every year).  The IMSI Market Study Group has developed a comprehensive and inspiring plan to be able to double the consumption of maple syrup over the next ten years.  The money generated through a penny per spout program would be a good start at providing the resources to make this happen.  For this program to be successful, it requires that all of the major equipment manufacturers participate. That way no company would have a competitive advantage by being able to sell their spout for 1 penny less if they don’t participate in the program.  If everyone participates, we will all win. 

Conclusion

Our industry has experienced tremendous growth in the past decade. All facets of the industry, from equipment manufacturers to producers to packers, have benefitted from the growth in output and markets for pure maple. I strongly believe in the capacity of the industry to be profitable and sustainable for many decades to come. However, we must also realize that much of our growth has come about due to wise investments made in the past.  For us to continue to succeed, we need to think of new and innovative ways to generate the funding necessary to invest in the continued development of the industry.  We cannot continue to rely on the Quebec producers to contribute the vast majority of the investments in research and promotion- it is well past time for everyone to step up and contribute our fair share. Everyone benefits from research and promotion, so everyone should participate in the funding. We must find a way for everyone to contribute according to their abilities, and these proposals are two options for consideration.

HOW TO HELP

Thoughts and ideas

I am applying for a research grant at Cornell to be able to study this issue further. If the grant proposal is accepted for funding, we will be able to do extensive surveys of producers, equipment manufacturers, packers, and other industry leaders to gauge the potential support for these types of programs.  

I am sure that many people reading this article have even better ideas on how to improve these proposals or offer entirely new and different proposals that may be superior.  

If our grant application is funded, you will likely hear from myself and others with further inquiries sometime in 2016.  However, if you have any thoughts at this time, I encourage you to send them to me at mlf36@cornell.edu or (518) 523 9337.

Michael Farrell