Click on the image above to download a PDF copy of the article.
This article begins by tracing the experiments and technology that went into the development of various methods of pipelines and tubing systems for moving maple sap from trees to boiling areas in the sugarbush. The majority of the article focuses on the efforts of three men who were working simultaneously during the 1950s to make a plastic tubing system for sap gathering a reality. These men were George Breen of Jamaica, Vermont; Nelson Griggs of Montpelier, Vermont; and Robert Lamb of Liverpool, New York.
Because space for images and photographs in the published article was limited, I was only able to include a few photographs of Breen, Griggs, and Lamb. With this website, I am happy to share a few more images that accompany the article and better illustrate their efforts, experimental designs, and the resulting commercial products of these creative men.
George Breen
George Breen was a sugarmaker from Jamaica, Vermont who decided that there must be a better way to gather sap than laboriously hauling pails of sap through the snow. This led him in 1953 to begin to experiment with flexible plastic tubing to use gravity and the natural pressure in trees to move sap from the tree to a collection point. In time, Breen’s experiments caught the attention of the 3M Corporation and together they created, patented, and marketed the Mapleflo sap gathering system. Here are a few photos of Breen at work in his sugarbush working with his early tubing design.
George Breen holding an example of his experimental spout and tubing in his Jamaica, VT sugarbush. Image Credit: University of Vermont Special Collections – Malvine Cole Papers.George Breen installing spout and tubing in his Jamaica, VT sugarbush, circa 1956. Image Credit: University of Vermont Special Collections – Malvine Cole Papers.George Breen inserting experimental tubing spout at taphole. Image Credit: University of Vermont Special Collections – Malvine Cole Papers.Breen’s Jamaica, VT sugarhouse with tubing line running in from the sugarbush, circa 1956. Image Credit: University of Vermont Special Collections – Malvine Cole Papers.Late 1950s Cover of 3M’s Mapleflo plastic tubing system, the patented commercial result of George Breen’s tubing experiments and invention. Image credit: collections of the author.Late 1950s diagram and illustration of 3M’s Mapleflo plastic tubing system, the patented commercial tubing system based on the experiments of George Breen. Image credit: collections of the author.
Nelson Griggs
Nelson Griggs was an engineer with an interest in maple sugaring and an idea that plastic tubing might be a viable alternative and improved method of gathering maple sap in the sugarbush. In 1955, while working as a engineering consultant with the Bureau of Industrial Research at Norwich University, in Northfield, Vermont, Griggs partnered with the University of Vermont’s maple research team to put his flexible plastic tubing ideas to the test in the sugarbush of the Proctor Maple Research Farm. The following are some photos related to that research.
Nelson Griggs installing experimental plastic tubing at Proctor Maple Research Farm in 1955. Image credit: 1956 issue of Vermont Life magazine.Nelson Griggs, center in striped sweater, with members of the Proctor Maple Research Farm research crew in the spring of 1955. Probable names of men in the photo include, University of Vermont (UVM) Professor, Dr. Fred Taylor on the far left, second from left UVM Extension Forester Ray Foulds, third from left UVM Professor, Dr. James Marvin. Image credit: UVM Special Collections – UVM Maple Research Collection.Examples of recently discovered original Griggs spouts and and tubing assemblage used in 1955 experiments and preserved in the University of Vermont Special Collections. Photo by author.Griggs experimental spout in use with plastic insert in taphole central metal connector, and flexible plastic tubing at other end. Image credit: Marvin and Green February 1959 article in UVM Agriculture Experiment Station Bulletin 611.
Robert Lamb
Bob Lamb was in the chainsaw and boat motor sales and repair business in the Syracuse, New York region, mostly working with the logging and marine industry when in 1955 he was asked by a sales contact in forestry business if he could help come up with an idea for moving maple sap using tubing. Lamb put his creative mind to work and developed and marketed his Lamb Sap Gathering System, later named the Naturalflow Tubing System. The following are images related to the early years of Bob Lamb’s tubing design.
International Maple Museum Centre display of early experimental spouts, fittings, and tubing, designed and tested by Bob Lamb. Photo by author.Bob Lamb demonstrating the use of a battery powered, backpack mounted drill. Image credit: 1963 Lamb Naturalflow Tubing System catalog, collections of author.Sales brochure for Lamb Sap Gathering System from 1958, the first year Lamb tubing was commercially available. Collections of author.Image of the Lamb Tubing System’s early installation method as a ground line with long drop lines. Image credit: 1963 Lamb Naturalflow Tubing System catalog, collections of author.Display in the International Maple Museum Centre created by Mike Girard showing the spouts, fittings, and tubing components and arrangement of the early commercial version of Lamb’s Naturalflow Tubing System. Photo by author.
The Vermont Historical Society’s journal Vermont History recently published an article I wrote on the origins of plastic tubing for making maple syrup. Specifically titled, “From Pails to Pipelines: The Origins and Early Adoption of Plastic Tubing in the Maple Syrup Industry,” the article examines the evolution of pipeline and tubing technology for gathering and moving maple sap with special attention to the relationship and interplay of the three men who carried plastic tubing from idea and experiment to commercial reality. The article appears in Volume 89, Number 1, Winter/Spring 2021 and is sent to all members of the Vermont Historical Society.
Unfortunately, since this is the current issue of the Vermont History and is hot off the presses, I am not permitted to share an electronic copy of the article for 6 months. But anyone can join the Vermont Historical Society and get the paper journal mailed to their door as well as online access to all their current and past journals (including this issue), all the while supporting the preservation and sharing of Vermont history.
This fall I will post a PDF copy of this article on this blog, so check back in September to get a copy.
Eastman Johnson painting showing men pulling sap gathering barrel set on its side on a sled in sugarbush, ca. 1860-1870.
In the years before plastic tubing was adopted for collecting and moving maple sap from the tree to the storage tank and the sugarhouse, maple producers had to travel from tree to tree on foot gathering sap from pails and later bags. That sap in turn was gathered and hauled through the sugarbush in a variety of tanks pulled on sleds, wheeled carts, wagons, trailers over the snow and mud. In later years truck flatbeds were employed to carry sap gathering tanks.
Image of a well-preserved example of a simple wood barrel used with top pouring funnel set on sled for sap gathering.
In the earlier years of sap gathering, in the 1700s and 1800s, maple producers gathered sap in large wooden barrels or drums, roughly 50 gallons in size, either set upright or on their side, secured atop sleds and stone boats, and pulled through the woods by horses, oxen, or even people power. Most historic images show one barrel in use at a time for gathering, but it was not uncommon for two or three barrels to be secured to one sled. While the volume of sap gathered to make maple syrup is always a staggering number in comparison to the volume of the product, in earlier days maple production was much smaller in scale than it is today, requiring a bit less carrying capacity.
Late 19th century postcard image of a large tapered wooden sap gathering tank pulled by oxen on a sled.
In addition to the simple barrel gathering tanks, at some point in the latter half of the 1800s some producers began to construct larger specialized tapered wooden tanks made from vertical staves for gathering sap . These tanks used flat staves secured with metal hoops and were wider at the base, narrower at the top and had a large opening on the top to pour fresh sap. The volume of such tanks was often in 200-300 gallon range.
Library of Congress image
By the early 1880s specialized wooden gathering tanks based on a modified barrel design began to appear. Most notable is the patented designs of Henry Adams and Clinton C. Haynes out of Wilmington, Vermont. Adams and Haynes first developed and manufactured their tank in the 1870s with a patent (US229,576) awarded in 1880. Under the title of “liquid holder” it was an elongated round wooden tank for the storage of maple sap or water on the farm. Unlike typical barrels at the time made with inflexible wood or metals straps or hoops, the Adams and Haynes tank was bound with adjustable iron rods that could be tightened or loosened as the wood staves of the tank expanded or shrank with wetting and drying.
1884 Patent design from Adams and C.C. Haynes wood slat sap gathering tank (US201467).
In 1884 Adams and Haynes patented a sap gathering tank, specifically designed to be pulled through the sugarbush for sap collection. Patented (US301,467) and advertised under the title of a “gathering tub,” this tank was sometimes referred to as a Tomahawk or Tommyhawk tank. This tank was based on a similar design as the storage tanks with the addition of a pair of openings on top equipped with wire mesh strainers and surrounded by a downwardly sloping square casing that facilitated the easy pouring of sap into the tank and minimized spillage. Instead of being completely circular in shape, the gathering tanks were somewhat flattened elliptical in cross section to provide more stability in hauling hundreds of gallons of sap. Sap was drained from a plug at the base of the tank. The large “liquid holder” storage tanks were made in sizes ranging from from 10 to 40 barrels in volume. The smaller gathering tub “Tomahawk” tanks were available in sizes that would hold from 3 to 7 barrels.
Advertisement for Adams & Haynes Improved Gathering Tub from 1884 Wilmington, Vermont directory.
Although Haynes died in 1919 and Adams in 1927, the Adams and Haynes tanks company continued to manufacture their tanks on the Adams’ Wilmington area farm into the 1940s. In addition to wood tanks and sap pails the partnership also manufactured sap evaporators and other farm tools such as yokes for oxen and wheelbarrows.
Image of a well preserved Adams and Haynes wooden Tomahawk Tank.Pouring sap into half barrel opening on Somerset County submarine shaped “double barrel” sap gathering tank on wheeled suspension wagon. Courtesy of Mare Ware and the Historical and Genealogical Society of Somerset County .
Another unique horizontal elongated wooden gathering tank developed in the late 1800s came out of Somerset County, Pennsylvania. Sometimes called a double barrel tank, this submarine shaped tank, tapered at both ends, was essentially a fully coopered elongated wooden barrel with metal hoops set on its side with the top portion of a coopered barrel fitted to the top to facilitate pouring and straining of sap. Seldom seen in use outside of Somerset County, these long tanks were set on sleds and suspended on wagons and wheeled carts using straps or chains.
Example of elongated coopered wooden barrel tank with suspended on a wheeled frame. This submarine shaped was unique to Somerset County, Pennsylvania. Courtesy of Mare Ware and the Historical and Genealogical Society of Somerset County .
These barrels featured special pouring funnels and openings to permit easy emptying of sap collecting pails and minimize the sloshing and spillage of sap in the tank as they moved over snow and rough terrain in the sugarbush trails and roads. Somerset County’s unique submarine shaped wooden tanks were coopered like an elongated barrel resting on its side with a specially fitted coopered half barrel on top for the pouring hole. They were emptied by pulling a plug near the base that permitted the contents to spill out onto a trough and into the sugarhouse storage tanks.
Image of Grimm’s cylindrical iron and tin metal gathering tank from a G.H. Grimm Manufacturing Company catalog dating to approximately 1894.
Sheet metal gathering tanks made their formal appearance in the early 1890s with the introduction of both galvanized iron and tin tanks by the G.H. Grimm Company. These tanks came in 3 or 4 barrel capacities and featured an inward sloping pouring cone and strainer as well as a exterior pouring arm connected by flexible hose at the base of the tank. Grimm also offered at this time, large rectangular open topped, galvanized iron, sap storage tanks up to 8 feet long 3 feet wide and 2 feet deep. With the arrival of Grimm’s metal tank, nearly all the major maple equipment manufacturers got on board with their own unique shapes and designs.
G.H. Grimm improved round sap gathering tank from early 1900s with side ribbing, domed top, and smaller conical opening.
By the early 1900s the G.H. Grimm Company’s improved gathering tank had gone through a redesign with a domed cover with a smaller conical funnel at the center replacing the wider cone style. A central two part strainer and removable cover continued to sit at the center of the funnel. The sides of the tank now featured horizontal ribbing and the flexible pouring arm was enlarged in size.
Dominion and Grimm “nouveau reservoir a ramasser”, a new style sap gathering tank as appeared in their 1961 catalog.
Interestingly, with the 1900 split of the G.H. Grimm Company in Rutland, Vermont and its sister company Grimm Manufacturing Company in Montreal (later to become the Dominion & Grimm Company), the Montreal company initially stuck with the inward sloping, wide-mouthed conical draining design and continued to describe it as “Grimm’s Quick-Straining, Self-Emptying Gathering Tank”. Later in time, after joining with Dominion, the company offered a full range of tanks with a round tank, an oval tank, and in the early 1960s, a trapezoidal tank with a raised round pouring tube and an interior strainer and splash arrester.
Drawing from William Burt’s 1896 patent for a all metal sap gathering tank with pouring arm on the side. This was the precursor to the Leader Evaporator Company’s Monitor Gathering Tank.
The Leader Evaporator Company followed Grimm’s early lead with their own version of an of an oval shaped metal gathering tank using William Burt’s 1896 patent design (US559,358). Marketed as the Monitor Gathering Tank, this tank included a number of features that were improvements upon the initial Grimm cylindrical and wooden tanks, most notably an interior splash arrester. The design features introduced with Leader Evaporator Company’s Monitor Gathering Tank and the earlier Grimm tank, namely the inward sloping top panel to funnel sap downward, the interior splash arrester, and the flexible pouring arm, became standard design features on essentially all the metal gathering tanks that came after them.
Leader Evaporator Company’s oval shaped Monitor Gathering Tank with pour arm on one end of the tank.
Actual production versions of Leader’s Monitor Gathering Tank feature the pouring arm at one of the rounded ends of the tank rather than midway along the straight side of the tank as shown in the patent design.
Vermont Farm Machine Company’s rectangular Monarch Hauling Tank, a design and name started by True and Blanchard who were later sold the Vermont Farm Machine Company.
The True & Blanchard Company out of Newport, Vermont developed a rectangular sap gathering tank called the Monarch Hauling Tank in the late 1890s or early 1900s. This tank featured a large rectangular opening that funneled down to a circular strainer and a flexible pouring arm at one end. When the True & Blanchard Company was sold to the Vermont Farm Machine Company in 1919, the Monarch Hauling Tank design and name was carried over unchanged.
Image of oval gathering tank from 1918 Vermont Farm Machine Company catalog.
Prior to acquiring the True & Blanchard Company and their Monarch tank, the Vermont Farm Machine Company offered an oval tank of their own with a square opening at the top with an interior round recessed strainer at the center. Like others of its time a flexible pouring arm was located at one end of the tank. It does not appear from the Vermont Farm Machine Company catalogs that the company continued to offer this design after the rectangular Monarch Tanks was brought into their equipment lineup.
GH Grimm oval galvanized metal sap gathering tank with two parallel raised ridges framing the pouring hole.
Although the G.H. Grimm Company started with a round tank in the 1890s, later in the 20th century they also offered an oval tank, similar in outward design to the earlier Vermont Farm Machine Company tank. The Grimm tank differed in having heavy raised metal ridges flanking the central pouring hole.
Rectangular gathering tank offered by Small Brothers Lightning Evaporator Company of Richford, Vermont in the 19-teens and 1920s.
In the late 19-teens or 1920 the Small Brothers Lightning Evaporator Company out of Richford, Vermont offered a rectangular tank with reinforced wood panels, a largely flat top, and the flexible pouring arm. In later years, the Lightning Evaporator Company changed to an oval shaped tank with a raised square pouring area.
Lightning Evaporator Company oval tank on the left with raised square opening and G.H. Grimm tank on right. Both images from respective company product catalogs.
G.H. Grimm acquired the Lightning Evaporator Company in 1964 after which time Grimm continued to offer the same oval design with the upward sloping pouring compartment. With the addition of the Lightning design oval tank, the Grimm Company appears to have discontinued its production of the earlier oval tank with parallel ridges flanking the pouring opening.
Vermont Evaporator Company round sap gathering tank with side ribbing, a domed top, and wide mouth opening for pouring sap.
The Vermont Evaporator Company came out with a round tank based on a design remarkably similar to G.H. Grimm’s round tank. That the Vermont Evaporator Company may have copied a Grimm design was not entirely surprising considering the history of their founders as former Grimm employees that were known to have copied Grimm designs in the past.
Sproul round sap gathering tank with recessed central pouring area.
Another notable round tank was manufactured by the Sproul Hardware and Manufacturing Company out of Delevan, New York in the early 1900s. The Sproul hauling tank design was similar in appearance to the early version of the Grimm round tank with a wide inwardly sloping top panel and smooth galvanized iron sides and a narrowing diameter pouring arm.
G.H. Soul’s King rectangular shaped sap gathering tank with sloping top panels and a square opening for pouring.
Lastly, one of the last of the companies to get on board with a gathering tank was the G.H. Soule Company out of St. Albans, Vermont who offered their popular King brand rectangular tanks in sizes ranging from 4 to 7 barrels. All the King tanks featured a reinforced wood base and a top panel that sloped upwardly to a central square opening and interior recessed pouring hole and strainer.
As this summary shows, following the replacement of wood gathering tanks maple equipment companies introduced many different round, oval, and rectangular metal sap gathering tanks, all with similar, but subtly different designs and features.
Charles Covil Post, better known as C.C. Post, was the inventor and maker of one of the first and most widely used, mass produced metal maple sap spouts. Born on January 18, 1831 in Hinesburgh, Vermont, Post was the son of A.H. Post, an industrious builder, farmer and cheese maker.
C.C. Post tin shop in old brick general store on Main Street in Hinesburgh, Vermont.
As a young single man C.C. Post worked as a farmer, but soon after his marriage in 1851 Post shifted to the metal work business, opening C.C. Post’s stove and tinware shop in Hinesburgh near the corner of Main Street and Mechanicsville Road. At the time, Post occupied the former Hinesburgh general store, a brick building built in 1820 at the center of town.
1857 Map of Hinesburgh, Vermont showing location of C.C. Post tin shop.Advertisement from 1863 for the sale of Cook’s Sugar Evaporator with C.C. Post of Hinesburgh as the sales agent.
C.C. Post’s entry in the maple sugar equipment business came in late 1862 or early 1863 when he secured the rights to manufacture and sell the Cook’s Sugar Evaporator. Introduced in 1859 by Daniel McFarland Cook out of Mansfield, Ohio, the new Cook’s evaporator introduced a maze-like network of baffles that facilitated the continuous flow of sap into syrup, notably more advanced and efficient than the commonly used flat pans and kettles of the time. As a result the Cook’s evaporator saw immediate popularity; however, no one was manufacturing the units locally. With the first Cook’s evaporators manufactured in Ohio and shipped to Vermont, becoming the exclusive agent for sale in Vermont quickly spread the name C.C. Post among maple sugar makers.
Image from C.C. Post’s first sap spout design patent awarded in 1868 (US84032).
Although there is no indication C.C. Post was ever a sugarmaker, he know the business and basics of its operation and began to develop his own ideas on sap spout designs and in November 1868 was awarded a patent for his first sap spout design (US84032). Having his own sap spout to sell along with the popular Cook’s evaporator, in 1869 C.C. Post focused his metal manufacturing efforts from general tin and stove works to just making sap spouts and selling maple sugaring equipment. With this focus on maple equipment making he briefly moved his operation from Hinesburgh to Waterbury for the year 1869 then in 1870 moved his business and home to Burlington.
Advertisement for C.C. Post’s Eureka Sap Spout from 1869 with his location listed as Waterbury, Vermont as he transitioned his operations from Hinesburgh to Burlington.
Post later sold his tin works building in Hinesburgh in 1881 to John S. Patrick who started the Reed and Patrick tin works. While in Burlington, Post initially resided on Colchester Street before later buying a lot at 83 North Union Street and building a home there in 1877. It is unclear where exactly C.C. Post carried out the foundry work of pouring the hundreds of thousands of cast iron metal taps he made. There was once a large barn that was possibly workshop or warehouse on the property behind the house on North Union Street. The house was listed in Burlington directories as both his residential and the official business address for his maple hardware business. Current owners of the house informed me that the barn was in poor condition and torn down. A block of eight condos were more recently built on the site of the former barn.
Aerial shot of C.C. Post house at 83 North Union Street in Burlington, Vermont.
From the get-go C.C. Post called his spout the Eureka and as arguably the first widely available cast iron spout was very popular and used extensively across the maple industry. While more expensive than the commonly used tubular wood spouts, cast iron spouts were durable, nested snugly in the taphole, were less prone to getting sour during the season, and were easily washable for years of continued use.
Portrait drawing of C.C. Post.
The Eureka sap spout was probably the most popular and best-selling sap spout in the 1870s and 1880s and Post didn’t hesitate to defend his spout designs against possible patent infringement. In 1879 C.C. Post declared, contrary to the claims by F.E. Lord that the Boss Sap Spout did not infringe on the patent for the Eureka Sap Spout, the Boss design infringed on a design owned by Post that was originally patented to James B. Sargent in 1868 (US76530), later owned and re-issued by Post in 1878 (USRE8495). A history of the Boss sap spout will be covered in a later post. In another case with the makers of the Willis Sap Spout dating to 1880, patent law experts were consulted and as reported in the Burlington Free Press that “the Willis sap spout and bucket hanger was decided to be so clearly an infringement that the manufacturers decided to at once discontinue its manufacture and sale.”
Image from one of C.C. Post’s later sap spout design patents awarded in 1871 (US117326).
Post continued to tweak his sap spout design and was awarded at least two more patents for new sap spout designs (US117326 and US117457) on July 25, 1871. He also developed a unique metal sap pail in 1870 that featured an indented or curved face at the point of the hanging hole to more tightly fit against the curve of the tree (US107407). It is interesting to study and compare the designs in Post’s patents and the images of spouts that appear in his advertisements, since the drawings are sometimes very different.
Advertisement for C.C. Posts Eureka Sap Spouts No. 1 and No.2. Notice the claim of over 11 million spouts sold.
Even more interesting is to look at the actual preserved examples of C.C. Post’s spouts in various antique maple spout collections. To learn more about these spout variations I highly recommend consulting Hale Mattoon’s comprehensive book Maple Spouts Spiles & Taps and Tools. Mattoon has done an incredible job of analyzing and describing these many subtle differences and changes that occurred with Post’s new patent designs and production changes.
Image of evaporator patent from J.F. Ferguson and C.C. Post awarded in 1884 (US308407).
In 1884, in conjunction with Burlington-based dairy equipment manufacturer and tin worker James F. Ferguson, C.C. Post was awarded a patent for a maple sap evaporator (US308407); however, despite both men being experienced with making and selling metal tools and equipment to the maple industry, there is no indication that this evaporator design was ever put into production.
Following the marriage of his daughter Lora L. Post to Charles C. Stelle of Brooklyn, New York in 1892, C.C. Post sold his sap spout and maple equipment business to his new son-in-law Stelle and retired from business. With the sale to Stelle, the business address for the manufacturing of Eureka spouts moved from 83 North Union Street in Burlington to 81 Fifth Avenue in Brooklyn, New York.
1894 advertisement for Chas. C. Stelle’s sales of Eureka Sap Spouts with a Brooklyn business address.
C.C. Post died in October 1899 in Burlington, Vermont at age 68, either from the complications of a spinal injury from a bicycle accident, as reported in his obituary, or from the effects of a stroke as reported on his death record. With his death, the value of C.C. Post’s property and estate totaled $167,000 which was divided evenly among his five surviving daughters.
Although not a lot is known about Charles C. Stelle, who was better known in Brooklyn as a real estate agent, he carried on the production, sales and promotion of the Eureka sap spout into the early 1900s. In 1912 Stelle came up with his own modification to Post’s Eureka spout and obtained a patent on his design modification (US104834). Advertisements for the sale the Stelle-Eureka sap spout continued to appear through 1916, after which it appears that sales and production by Stelle ceased. Charles C. Stelle passed away at age 61 in his Huntington, New York home in 1924.
In January 2020 I had the honor of being invited to the Vermont Maple Conference to make a couple of presentations on historical research I had conducted in the last few years. One presentation was a condensed version of the story of George C. Cary and the Cary Maple Sugar Company, which is the topic of my book Maple King: The Making of a Maple Syrup Empire. The second presentation was on new research I have completed for an article currently in review for publication in the journal Vermont History. This research traces the early origins and development of the use of plastic tubing for gathering maple sap in the maple syrup industry.
University of Vermont Extension Maple Specialist Mark Isselhardt arranged to have the audio from both presentations recorded in association with the presentation slides and posted these on the UVM Extension Maple Website. You can click on the following presentation titles or the title slides here to link to the full audio/slide show for each one. Enjoy!
In the mid-twentieth century there was increasing concern about the levels of lead present in maple syrup. Numerous sources of lead were present in maple syrup making equipment at that time which had the potential to introduce unacceptable levels of lead into maple sap and ultimately be concentrated in maple syrup. Lead-based paint was used on pails and equipment. Brass components and sheet metals like terne-plate and galvanized steel contained lead in their alloys or as exterior coatings, and lead solder was used in fabricating metal evaporators, gathering tanks, and collection pails.
With the enactment of the Food and Drug Act of 1906 the Federal Government took a more active role in addressing food safety concerns, although the primary focus at that time was on protecting consumers from being sold fake, impure, dangerous products through false labeling and adulteration. Substances like lead were known to be poisonous, but how much and in what forms was a topic of great debate. State departments of agriculture in the maple syrup producing regions were aware of the problem and conducted limited testing of maple syrup for lead levels and begun research on alternative lead-free paints appropriate for the maple syrup industry.
The Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began expressing its concerns with lead levels in maple syrup in the early 1930s. With the enactment of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FDCA) of 1938, new language empowered the FDA to develop standards and safe levels of otherwise dangerous substances like lead in maple syrup and engage in more direct enforcement actions.
Cary Maple Syrup Company plant in St. Johnsbury, Vermont in 1938. Photo by Hansel Mieth.
The nexus for the application and enforcement of the FDCA of 1938 was through the constitutional provision allowing congress to regulate interstate commerce. The FDA needed to make a point with its initial enforcement and get the attention of the maple industry, but at the same time to not punish a small maple syrup producer who couldn’t afford the court challenge. Wisely the FDA selected the biggest in the business for its test case. In June of 1938, United States Marshalls seized over 900 barrels of maple syrup being shipped by United Maple Products, LTD. of Croghan, New York, to St. Johnsbury, Vermont for the Cary Maple Sugar Company. The Cary Company was the largest buyer of maple syrup in the world, conducting its bottling operations at their four-story plant in St. Johnsbury, Vermont.
FDA chemists tested the maple syrup in the confiscated barrels and determined that some of the syrup contained an “added poisonous or deleterious ingredient, lead, which may render the article injurious to health” and brought civil charges under the curious title of United States vs. 52 Drums Maple Syrup in which the civil action was brought against the property itself and not specifically the Cary Maple Sugar Company who was the owner of the maple syrup.
Vermont Federal District Court Judge and one-time candidate for Vermont Governor, Harland B. Howe.
The following year, on July 24, 1939 in Montpelier in the United States District Court of Vermont presentation of the case began in front of a jury and Federal Judge Harland B. Howe. As it turns out, Judge Howe was to retire on medical disability the following year and this case was one of the very last cases he oversaw from the bench in Montpelier. Moreover, as a life-long Vermonter and native of St. Johnsbury, Judge Howe was more than familiar with the world of maple syrup production and the Cary Maple Syrup Company. Howe was also undoubtedly familiar with St. Johnsbury attorney Arthur L. Graves, who represented the Cary Company on numerous occasions.
The trial lasted seven days spread across two weeks and as recounted in detailed daily blow-by-blow reports in the Burlington Free Press, “the courtroom was packed with spectators including representatives of the State Department of Agriculture which is interested in the proceeding as a test case having serious bearing on the future of maple syrup in interstate commerce.”
As suggested, this case garnered a great deal of attention in Vermont and among the maple syrup industry. Interestingly, the initial editorial response by the Burlington Free Press was to point out that the lead levels in the syrup were minuscule and there were no known cases of anyone ever getting poisoned by lead in maple syrup, and moreover, that the in spite of the case being heard in a Vermont court, the syrup in question came from New York.
Barrels of maple syrup being unloaded at the Cary Maple Sugar Company plant in St. Johnsbury, Vermont in 1938. Photo by Hansel Mieth.
FDA chemists testified that lead levels in the tested syrup ranged from .001 to .136 grains of lead per pound. However, Cary Company chemist testified that the average lead levels in the tested syrup amounted to .0101 grains per pound. Against the objection of prosecuting Federal District Attorney Joseph A. McNamara, Cary’s attorney Graves offered as further evidence a federal government bulletin that stated that “maple syrup containing not more than .025 grains of lead is proper, not poisonous and not injurious”. Attorney McNamara counted that “there was no authority for the statements contained in the bulletin since the department had never established a regulation on lead tolerance”.
Cary attorney Graves further argued that the Cary Company considered the syrup coming into its plant as a raw product and not consumer ready food product. Once in the plant the syrup would be processed and “de-leaded” prior to being bottled or repackaged, thus it was premature to test the syrup in the barrels coming into the plant for lead levels.
Burlington Free Press headline from August 2nd, 1939.
On August 1st, 1939, the jury of Vermonters ruled against the Federal Government and in favor of the 52 barrels of syrup and the Cary Company. In reviewing their decision, Judge Howe “expressed open and enthusiastic approval of the verdict” and was quoted as saying to the jury “I think your verdict speaks the truth” and “I am very proud of you, it shows good sense”. He further added that “he regretted there were no more cases for a jury of such high caliber to consider”.
Cary Maple Sugar Company statement in the Rutland Daily Herald, August 8, 1939.
By the end of the trial the Burlington Free Press did come around to promoting the need for maple producers to “take reasonable measures to completely eliminate such small amounts of lead as may be discovered in maple syrup produced in this state”. The Cary Company, feeling vindicated by the jury decision, took out ads on August 8th thanking the FDA for their efforts to protect the public’s health and echoing the words of the Editors of the Burlington Free Press.
However, the Cary Company possibly spoke to soon, and the following day Federal District Attorney McNamara announced that the U.S. Government would appeal the decision on technical grounds to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It was agreed that all the syrup with the exception of one barrel would be returned to the Cary Company, and the one barrel would be retained for evidence in moving the case to appeal.
In April of 1940, after hearing appeals testimony from attorneys McNamara and Graves, the three member U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York City reversed the decision of the District Court jury. The appeal was granted on the grounds that Judge Howe should never have allowed testimony claiming that the syrup was an unfinished product that would later be processed and the lead removed prior to being made available and sold to consumers. The federal government argued, and the appeals judges agreed, that the claim that the syrup in the barrels was an unprocessed raw product and what happened or how it was later handled (supposedly de-leaded) in the plant in St. Johnsbury was immaterial and should not have been admitted.
The maple industry had hoped that one outcome of the case would be that the federal government would establish a lead tolerance level to serve as a guide for the industry in the future. The appeals judges made no definitive statement on the relative levels of lead in the syrup or what standards constituted lead contamination outside of acknowledging that “the government has established what is called a working tolerance of .025 grains of lead per pound which for present purposes may be treated as the maximum amount of lead maple syrup may contain without being barred from interstate shipment”.
In the end the maple industry, with the urging and assistance of state and provincial departments of agriculture, has worked to reduce and eliminate lead in maple syrup through the elimination of lead-based paints, and the modernization and replacement of equipment containing lead-based metals, solder, or coatings, like tin, terne-plate, bronze and galvanized steel. The widespread use of stainless steel, welding rather than solder, and a variety of plastics has nearly eliminated lead in maple syrup.
Like with seeded agricultural crops, maple syrup production, also a plant-based crop, faces the challenges mother nature and the natural environment throw at it. The challenge has been finding safe and effective methods of overcoming the battle with microorganisms, like bacteria and fungi, that also want to enjoy the sap of a freshly tapped maple tree. Applying pesticides has been a solution in agriculture and food production for eons, and, for better or worse, the maple industry was not spared. Unbeknownst to many, since pesticide use is not allowed today, the previous century was witness to the maple industry working through its own history of finding, embracing, and ultimately abandoning, pesticides in the sugarbush.
In the early 1950s, research began for the development of an antimicrobial application that could be used to slow or eliminate the detrimental effects of microbial growth on sap quality and sap flow at the tap hole of the tree. Researchers at the USDA Northeast Lab, the University of Vermont, Michigan State, and MacDonald College in Ontario all confirmed that the slowing of sap flow, and in some cases stoppage, over the course of the tapping season was in part attributed to the growth of micro-organisms such as yeast and mold at the area of the taphole. The tap hole was in effect a fresh wound in a tree that emitted sugar rich sap, a welcome environment for microbial growth.
Putnam Robbins demonstrating the insertion of a paraformaldehyde tablet into a tap hole.
Looking for a way to counteract this microbial growth, in 1956 under the direction and funding of C. O. Willits at the USDA’s eastern regional research laboratory, researchers responded with various approaches to tap hole sterilization and improved sanitation. The bulk of the research and development effort was carried out at Michigan State University by forestry professor and maple specialist Putnam Robbins and microbiologist Robert Costilow. Robbins and Costilow experimented with a variety of chemical treatments and methods, eventually settling on trioxymethylene, also known as paraformaldehyde.[1]
Robbins and Costilow found a small pill-like tablet with 250 milligrams of paraformaldehyde embedded in agar to be the simplest and most effect method to administer the chemical at the taphole. Sometimes called PF or PFA pellets, the pellet would be inserted in the fresh drilled tap hole prior to the insertion of the spile, and the agar would slowly dissolve over the course of the season.
Paraformaldehyde tablet going in a freshly drilled tap hole.
Research by Robbins, Costilow and others examined how much PFA residue remained in maple syrup made from PFA treated sap holes. They found that the overwhelming percent was less than 1 parts per million (ppm) and that 100% of syrup samples tested were less than 2 ppm. Robbins and Costilow began promoting the idea of use of the pellets in 1960 and submitted an application for approval for manufacturing and use to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Paraformaldehyde was registered with the EPA as a pesticide with approval to distribute for use as a disinfectant for bacterial plant pathogens and fungal diseases in maple tree tap holes and went into use for the 1962 maple sugaring season. Formal approval for use began when the tolerance levels were published on February 20, 1962 in the Federal Register under 21 CFR 121.1079. At some point oversight shifted to the EPA and it was moved in 1975 to 21 CFR 123.330 for regulation by the EPA. Based on Robbins and Costilow’ s research, tolerance level for PFA in maple syrup chosen by the FDA was set at not to contain in excess of 2 ppm of PFA. The decision to set the tolerance level at 2 ppm was somewhat controversial, since later studies found naturally occurring levels of PFA being higher than 2 ppm in completely untreated trees, and treated trees showing zero ppm.[2]
1967 advertisement from R. M. Lamb company promoting their sale of the Flomor brand paraformaldehyde tablet.
With PFA being approved for use by the maple industry, three manufacturers were registered to produce the pellets, all three of which were prominent sellers of maple equipment and supplies. Lamb Natural Flow, Inc. of Liverpool, NY made Flomor brand pellets, Sugar Bush Supply Company of Mason, MI made Ma-pel brand pellets, and Reynolds Sugar Bush of Aniwa, WI in conjunction with the Vicksburg Chemical Company of Newark, NJ made Sapflo pellets. A bottle of 500 pellets generally sold for $5.00 at that time.
As hoped, application of PFA pellets to fresh tapholes resulted in substantial increases in sap production over the course of the season with a 20% increase on average and as much as 50% increase in some cases. One pellet manufacturer and large-scale producer even went so far as to say the pellet was “probably the most significant profitability tool that has ever been developed for our industry.”[3]
1967 advertisement from Vicksburg Chemical Company and their partner Reynolds Sugarbush promoting the Sapflo brand paraformaldehyde tablet along with Fermaban and Myverol, their other chemical preservatives for maple syrup and maple confections.
Manufacturers and marketers of the PFA tablets heavily promoted their use in conjunction with the shift to plastic tubing. The projected increases in sap production from the use of PFA pellets together with plastic tubing were enormous and potential game changers. As with plastic tubing, the use of a chemical aid was viewed by some as simply modernization with the aid of science and technology. Some may even say, better living through chemistry, as the Dupont advertising slogan went. In fact, as noted above, one of the three manufacturers of the PFA pellet was Bob Lamb, the maker of Lamb Naturalflow, tubing, who became the most influential manufacturer and promoter of plastic tubing in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s.
Advertisement from 1964 for the Ma-pel brand of paraformaldehyde tablets as sold by Bob Huxtable’s Sugar Bush Supplies Company out of Lansing, Michigan.
The pellets were clearly effective in slowing microbial growth and increasing and extending sap flows during the tapping season; however, several researchers and producers recommended against their use due to the adverse effects of the pellets on the short- and long-term health of the trees. In addition, the mere use of the word “formaldehyde” in association with food production was very unpopular with consumers. Combine that with a growing interest by the maple syrup industry in organic production, labelling, and marketing put the use of PFA pellets further out of favor. At the same time, there was strong push-back from some corners within the industry that the pellets were harmless. Not surprisingly support for the use of PFA was especially strong from the large producers and manufacturers of the pellets, most notably from the influential Robert M. Lamb and Reynolds family, with Lynn Reynolds, serving as the President of the International Maple Syrup Institute at the time.[4]
Ultimately, the state of Vermont appears to have been the first government (state, federal, or provincial) to formally ban the use of PFA pellets, reportedly doing so around 1982. It is interesting to note that a number of references make the claim that Vermont led the way with a ban around this time, yet I have been unable to identify and document the regulatory action or Vermont statutes to support this claim and this date. Likewise, I have been unable to find any news reports from that time announcing the action of the State of Vermont. This is not to say that I don’t believe that the State put in a ban of some sort, rather, it is remarkable that it has been so difficult to verify the details and date of that regulatory action.
By the end of the 1980s, two decades of research demonstrating the ill-effects of the pellets on forest health and sugarbush productivity had convinced most producers to discontinue their use. At the federal level in the United States approval for distribution of PF for use in the maple industry was cancelled by the end of 1989, effectively banning its use. In Canada registration for the use of PF expired at the end of 1990, effectively resulting in a ban on its use beginning in 1991.
Banning of the PFA pellet in the United States was specifically carried out in two ways. First through the voluntary cancellation by the registrants of approval to distribute PFA pellets. Approval to distribute had previously been awarded by the EPA to the three companies manufacturing the pellets. In 1986 Reynolds Sugar Bush, Inc. (Sapflo) cancelled their registration, while Lamb Natural Flow, Inc. (Flomor) and Sugar Bush Supply Company (Ma-pel) both cancelled theirs in 1989. In addition, in 1999 the EPA revoked the previously established tolerance level for residues of paraformaldehyde in maple syrup with publication of the revocation as a final rule in the Federal Register.
In Canada the last registered product containing paraformaldehyde for use as an antimicrobial agent in maple syrup expired on December 31, 1990, effectively making its sale, purchase or use illegal after that date. However, a maximum residue limit of 2 ppm of paraformaldehyde in maple syrup remained on the books until a proposed revocation in 2010. From time to time, examples of its continued use have appeared in the news.For example, investigations in Quebec in 2001 discovered continued use of PFA pellets by sugarmakers with evidence of PFA pellets found at 21 of the 50 sugarbushes visited.[5]
————————
[1] J.M. Sheneman, R. N. Costilow, P.W. Robbins, and J.E. Douglass, “Correlation Between Microbial Populations and Sap Yields From Maple Trees,” Food Research 24 (1958): 152-159.
[2] Putnam W. Robbins, “Improving Quality and Quantity of Maple Sap,” Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Maple Products, Eastern Research Utilization and Development Division – USDA (1959): 42-46; “New Pellet Can Increase Maple Syrup Yield 50 Pct,” Traverse City Record-Eagle 16 November 1960, 14; R.N. Costilow, P.W. Robbins, R.J. Simmons, C.O. Willits, “The efficiency and practicability of different types of paraformaldehyde pellets for controlling microbial growth in maple tree tapholes,” Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Quarterly Bulletin 44, no. 3 (1962): 559-79; 40 CFR Part 185.4650.
[4] A.L. Shigo and F.M. Laing “Some Effects of Paraformaldehyde on Wood Surrounding Tapholes in Sugar Maple Trees,” U.S. Forest ServiceResearch Paper NE-161. (1970); R.S. Walters and A. Shigo, “Paraformaldehyde Treated Tapholes, Effects on Wood,” Maple Syrup Digest (1979) 19 no. 2 (1979): 12–18; M.F. Morselli, “Effects of the Use of Paraformaldehyde Pellets on Sugar Maple Health: A Review,” Maple Syrup Digest 7A, no. 3(1995): 27–30.
[5] “40 CFR parts 180, 185, and 186 – Tolerance Revocations for Certain Pesticides,” Federal Register, Wednesday, April 7, 1999, vol. 64, no. 66, p. 16874-16880; Established Maximum Residue Limit: Paraformaldehyde EMRL2011-05. Health Canada Pest Management Regulatory Agency, March 14, 2011; “Maple-syrup producers sour: Quebec farmers seek federation’s action to curtail use of banned chemical on trees,” The Gazette 18 July 2001.
The George H. Soule company was one of the most important evaporator companies in the United States in the first half of the 20th century. The Soule company has its beginnings in Fairfield and then Burlington, Vermont before moving to its long-time home of St. Albans, Vermont.
George Henry Soule, the founder of the company, was born into a maple sugaring and farming family in the Fairfield area of Franklin County, Vermont in 1865. After graduating from Goddard Seminary in 1887 in Barre, Vermont, George returned to assist his widower father with their extensive farm holdings. The Soule farm, located on South Road about three miles south of Fairfield town center, was established by George’s grandfather, Joseph A. Soule in the 1840s or 1850s. The farm included a two and a half story Greek Revival style farm house and a collection of mid-19th century barns, tin shop, and wood shed. Away from the farm center in the adjoining sugarbush were a handful of sugarhouses.
Modern view of Soule family farm on South Rd. Fairfield County, Vermont.
George especially took to the maple sugaring operations and in no time grew their sugarbush to become one of the largest in the state. As early as 1893 he had 4,500 taps feeding two sugar houses. By 1905 he had grown to around 7,000-8,000 taps with room for many more. In fact, as one of the single largest producers in New England at the time, he was widely referred to as the “Maple Sugar King,” a title he would share with the famous sugar buyer George C. Cary of St. Johnsbury.
Soule’s prominence as a maple sugar maker in the 1890s and early 1900s was illustrated by the use of his name in advertisements by two of the most important evaporator and sugaring equipment companies. The Vermont Farm Machine Company in 1897 featured a testimonial for their evaporator by Soule, including a note that his syrup had won the first-place prize that January at the Vermont Maple Sugar Makers Convention. In a 1906 advertisement, The G. H. Grimm Company noted that George H. Soule, who has the largest sugarbush in Vermont with 8,000 taps, uses the Grimm sap spout.
As a notable sugarmaker in Vermont, George Soule was active from the beginning years of the Vermont Maple Sugarmakers Association, but it was in 1910 when he was elected President of the Association that his leadership began to emerge. He was re-elected to the post for a second year in 1911.
George H. Soule’s 1913 evaporator patent design drawing (US1049935).
Soule did not only spend his time tapping trees and raising dairy cattle on his 1,100-acre farm. He also put his own ideas to work on designing and improving sugaring evaporators and other equipment. In fact, as early as 1897 he applied for an evaporator patent design (US635876) that was later assigned (sold) to the Vermont Farm Machine Company. In 1911, working from the tin shop on his farm, George improved upon his earlier design with the additions of a series of deep drop flues, a rear sap preheater, and external sap regulators. Patented in 1913 (US1049935), these design elements became the basic features of the evaporators that later formed the backbone of Soule’s evaporator company.
1916 patent design drawing for George H. Soule’s famous sap spout (US1207444).
In the next few years Soule patented a few more items, including a “sap-gathering apparatus” which was a sap collection pail and cover with a hook fixed to the cover that allowed the cover and pail to pivot or rotate on the tap while still attached to the tree, permitting the emptying of the pail by pouring from the side without having to detach it from the spout. It does not appear that this invention was put into production. However, Soule’s sap spout design (US1207444) was mass produced and the Soule spout became one of the most widely-used cast metal spouts in the history of the maple industry.
Examples of the hooked and hookless Soule Sap Spout.
By June 1915, George H. Soule was ready to enter the maple evaporator business and formed the Burlington Evaporator Company on Battery Street in Burlington, Vermont, occupying a three-story building with 7,000 square feet of space with a side alongside the railroad tracks.
1920 Sanborn Fire Insurance map showing Aldis Street location of Soule Company factory in St. Albans, Vermont.
In forming the company Soule partnered with J.M. Ruiter and A.A. Hunter, two men that for years had worked for the Leader Evaporator Company, also in Burlington. The story of Ruiter and Hunter will be covered in greater detail in the post on history of the Leader Evaporator Company in this series, but suffice it to say, the Leader Company was not happy with their shift in allegiance. In July 1915 Leader posted ads in several Vermont newspapers stating in no uncertain terms that Ruiter and Hunter no longer represented the Leader Company in any way. Of course, George Soule loved the free advertising and even said so in an ad of his own!
Leader Evaporator Company newspaper notice from 1915 announcing that Mister Hunter and Mister Ruiter were no longer representing the Leader Company.George H. Soule’s Burlington Evaporator Company advertisement from 1915 in response to the Leader Company notice.
From the very beginning Soule named his evaporator the Maple King, but he also had the Maple Queen evaporator in 1915. The origins of use of the brand name of King for his evaporator most likely comes from Soule himself being referred to as the “Maple Sugar King”; however, there is another version of the story. According to the descendants of Albert James King, the King Evaporator was named after Albert J. King. Albert was Soule’s friend and neighbor from early Buck Hollow and had worked for Soule at one time. Soule reportedly chose King as the brand name for the evaporator as a thank you for Albert J. King’s assistance with the regulator design of what became Soule’s patented evaporator. Use of the Maple Queen name for an evaporator by Soule lasted roughly from 1915 to 1916. Letterhead for the Burlington Evaporator Company lists them as the “Manufacturers of the King and Queen Evaporators.” By 1918, the Maple Queen name had disappeared and the Maple King Evaporator became just the King Evaporator.
Example of the King Evaporator with its famous dollar signs on the cast iron arch front.
Incidentally, there was another evaporator with the King name around this time that was entirely unrelated to the design and manufacture of George H. Soule. Harlow Henry Mower, a hardware store and tin shop owner from nearby Sheldon, Vermont manufactured and sold his own King Evaporator in the late 19-teens and early 1920s. Little is known of his design, how many he made or how he chose the name King. One wonders how the Soule Company felt about H.H. Mower’s use of the King name for his evaporator. In the end, the Mower version of the King Evaporator was fairly short-lived.
The Burlington Evaporator Company partnership that started in 1915 ended when Ruiter and Hunter relinquished their interests to George H. Soule a year later, giving George complete control of the Burlington Evaporator Company in July 1916. George H. Soule continued to operate into 1918 as the Burlington Evaporator Company out of the building near the corner of Battery and Maple Streets.
A few years later in September 1918, Soule formed a new partnership with Frederick T. Bradish, now operating under the name George H. Soule & Co. Bradish had been in the butter tub and creamery supplies business in Medford, Massachusetts for many years before going to work as the advertising manager for the Vermont Farm Machine Company of Bellows Falls, so he had a knowledge and familiarity with maple sugaring equipment and sales. Bradish was with the firm 10 years before he died in 1928 at the age of 63, again leaving Soule with sole control of his evaporator and maple sugaring supplies company.
Sanborn Fire Insurance map from 1946 of George H Soule Company and Fairfield Farms Maple Company building on Stowell Street in St. Albans, Vermont.
To house the new Geo. H. Soule & Co. firm, Soule and Bradish erected a large factory building on Aldis Street, adjacent to the Central Vermont Railroad in St. Albans, Vermont. Instead of building from the ground up, they moved an existing three-story building onto the site and added a two-story factory and office space with the entire building covering 9,000 square feet.
Modern image the renovated George H. Soule Company and Fairfield Farms Maple Products Company building, also known as the Willard Building in St. Albans, Vermont.
In the 1920s the Soule Company served as a buying agent for the George C. Cary Maple Sugar Company, bringing in barrels and cans of maple sugar and maple syrup to their Aldis Street factory and shipping them to Cary in St. Johnsbury. Soule got into the buying agent business as a result of accepting maple sugar and syrup in exchange for cash when selling his evaporators and equipment to producers. The Soule company in turn would sell it to the Cary company. The Soule Company than added the responsibility of operating as a buying agent for Cary. However, when Cary filed for bankruptcy and the Cary Company was taken into receivership in 1931, the Soule Company was left with many pounds of sugar and syrup on their hands. In response, George H. Soule decided to go into the maple products business and formed Fairfield Farms Maple Company in September 1931 with the doors opening for business in April 1932.
Example of the cover of a George H. Soule Company King Sugar Tools catalog from the 1930s.
To house his new concern, George H. Soule purchased the two-story, wood framed Willard Manufacturing Company building on Stowell Street in St. Albans, a short distance away from his Aldis Street factory. By 1935 Fairfield Farms was purchasing over 2 million pounds of maple syrup that they bottled, canned, and turned into maple sugar and other maple-based products.
In the spring of 1937, there was more activity in the Soule sugarbush in Fairfield than the usual men gathering sap. That April a Universal Newsreel film crew from Boston was in Vermont for four days to catch scenes of maple sugaring and boiling on film. At the time George Soule was operating 15,000 taps in his sugarbush spread across four farms including some acres that were equipped with the Gooseneck metal pipeline to move sap from the trees to collection tanks near the sugarhouse. George himself spent some time outdoor in the sugarbush with the film crew in mid-April which must make one wonder if soon after it led to his demise. Following a week of illness, George H. Soule died of pneumonia on May 8, 1937 of age 71.
Image of George H. Soule from the mid-1930s.
Having never married with no children of his own, George Soule’s nephews Everett I. Soule and Raymond L. Soule soon took over ownership and running the George H. Soule Company and Fairfield Farms Maple Products. Although the Soule family in general has a long and wide history as maple syrup producers, it is unclear to what degree Everett and Raymond Soule had been involved with sugaring in their earlier years. Regardless, both were experienced with running a business having both been a part of running their father Chilo Lee Soule’s tobacco company in Burlington for many years.
Exploded perspective of Soule’s King Evaporator from 1950s era.Soule’s King Brand sap gathering tank.
Everett would take the helm as president of the companies with Raymond going in a different direction, becoming the city assessor and building inspector for the city of Burlington. Everett’s son Richard C. Soule came on board in 1939, rising to the post of vice-president before shifting to the insurance business in 1952. Richard C. Soule would go on to be a Vermont state senator for Franklin County from 1968 to 1985.
Patent design drawing from 1962 of R.L. Soule and E.I. Soule’s portable poser tree tapper (US2563195).
Under the leadership of Everett Soule, the company introduced a few new inventions that were right in line with new post-war technologies and innovations common in industry and agriculture. Most notable was the King Power Tapper, a portable, backpack mounted gasoline powered drill and the plastic sap bag. The “King Portable Power Tree Tapper”, patented by Raymond L. Soule and Everett I. Soule in 1951 (US2563195) was not the first portable tree tapper to be invented but it was the first to be produced for widespread commercial sale. The speed and ease with which it allowed sugarmakers to tap many times more trees than with the traditional drill or brace and bit was a game changer in the sugarbush at the time.
Advertising brochure for the King Portable Power Tree Tapper.
The other important Soule Company invention in the 1940s and 1950s was a flexible plastic sap collection bag that would replace the use of the wood or metal pail or bucket. The King Sap Bag was developed by the Soule brothers in the 1940s when plastics were the new inexpensive and magical material that would change the world. After years of tweaking, it became available for purchase and use in the 1951 sugaring season. Designed to be washed and reusable for few seasons, it was made from a heavy-duty clear plastic called vinylite. The bags hung on a traditional hookless sap spout and would hold up to 15 quarts of sap. Everett Soule obtained a Canadian patent (CA598853) on the bags in 1960, but for some reason the bags were never patented in the United States. You can read more about the history of plastic sap bags at this earlier post on this website.
Advertising brochure for the Soule Company’s King Maple Sap Bag.
As someone with a fair amount of experience applying plastics to sap collection, Everett I. Soule was an early proponent and designer to hop on the bandwagon for flexible plastic tubing and himself obtained one of the earliest patents for a system of tubing, spouts, and fittings. Everett Soule’s patent (US2944369/CA652474 and CA673374) for a flexible plastic tubing system was applied for in 1958 and awarded in 1960, but it seems to never have been put into use. Through my other research efforts, I discovered that the 3M company, who manufactured the Mapleflo tubing system, was known for purchasing patent rights and issuing patent interference claims. So, it is possible that the Soule tubing system was a contested patent. My research on this topic continues.
Advertisement for the King Sap Bag from a French language agricultural magazine from Quebec, showing the wide distribution of the Soule Company products.
Sometime in the 1940s, possibly in 1942, the George H. Soule Company left its Aldis Street factory and moved into the Willard Manufacturing Building to be under the same roof as the Fairfield Farms Maple Company. In 1948, Everett I. Soule announced the closing of the candy making operations at Fairfield Farms due to a shrinking interest in maple sugar candy. By 1950, Fairfield Farms no longer appears in the St. Albans city directory and in 1952, the same year Richard Soule left to pursue a career in insurance, Fairfield Farms Maple Products announced it would no longer be buying maple syrup.
Raymond Soule continued as city assessor through 1951 before becoming vice-president of the clothing manufacturer, O.L. Hinds. Raymond Soule passed away in 1956 at the age of 69. Everett I. Soule himself was listed as both retired and company president in 1958, but clearly his involvement with the company had lessened.
Photo from the 1970s of the former Soule Co. building (aka Willard Building) following the purchase of the company by the Leader Evaporator Company. Notice the Leader name on the building.
In June 1964 Leader Evaporator Company purchased George H. Soule Company and moved a portion of its manufacturing team from Rutland to its St. Albans facilities. A few months later, following a short illness, Everett I. Soule died in Florida on August 18, 1964 at age 72.
Sometime after the George H. Soule Company ended their operation of Fairfield Farms Maple Products, a different Soule family rekindled the Fairfield Farms name. S. Allen Soule of Fairfield, a cousin of Everett I. Soule, was a syrup packer and sold one of the earliest lithographed syrup cans, and he began to use the Fairfield Farms name to do business in the mid-1950s. Despite having the same name of Soule (and being related) and both using the Fairfield Farms brand, the S. Allen Soule and George H. Soule companies were entirely separate entities.
Special thanks to Nancy J. King and David A. King for information on the history and connection of their great grandfather, Albert J. King, to George H. Soule and the source for the name of the King Evaporator.
This article originally appeared in a 2004 edition of the Wisconsin Maple News.
Plastic tubing and vacuum pumping continue to grow in popularity in Wisconsin sugarbushes with a few more miles added every year. But long before the invention of plastic tubing in the late 1950s, early twentieth century Yankee farmers wanting to reduce the labor of gathering sap invented a metal gravity-fed pipeline system that carried sap directly from the tree to the sugarhouse. This metal pipeline system consisted of three sizes of tubing, each constructed from long narrow sheets of English tin folded and crimped at the top and slightly tapered at the end to be inserted tightly into another piece of tubing. The system also included spiles made from conical sheets of tin with a metal tube soldered to the bottom like a drop line. The spile was either inserted directly into openings on the top of pipeline or into connecting pieces that fit into the pipeline. This connection from the spile to the tubing was made by a shorter, tapered piece of tubing with a curve at the narrow end, similar in appearance to the neck of a goose. In fact, it was this piece that gave this system its common name of “gooseneck system”. The weight of the rigid metal pipeline was supported by heavy gauge wire strung through the woods, with a hook at one end of each piece of tubing to hang the tubing on the support wires.
The gooseneck system in use in a Vermont sugarbush circa 1930. Source: Vermont Maple Sugar and Syrup, Bulletin 38.
The gooseneck system was patented in 1916 near the village of Mayfield, New York along the southern margins of Adirondack State Park by William H. Brower, Jr. Brower, who was described by his grandson as a mechanic and tinkerer, developed the system with his neighbor and syrup maker, Edward L. Lent. Today, the workshop where it was invented still stands on land owned by the Lent family and is noted by a roadside historic marker. According to Lent family history, Brower and Lent later sold the patent to one of the larger Vermont maple syrup equipment makers. Amazingly, through four generations of syrup making, the Lent family has never stopped using the gooseneck system. At one time, the Lent family’s mountainside sugarbush was using as many as 2500 taps on the system and boiling on a 3 foot by 16 foot wood fired evaporator. In recent year the family has reduced their tapping to around 300 to 400 taps and downsized to a 2 foot by 10 foot evaporator. According to the Lent family, the metal pipeline will occasionally freeze during cold spells, but thaws out quickly on south and east facing hillside of the their sugarbush. At the end of the season, the network of support wire is left strung through the sugarbush but the tubing is taken down. The pipeline sections are washed and boiled in the evaporator in the last sap of the year then set upright to dry, coating them with a thin layer of sugary sap that prevents rust from developing in the off season.
The late Edward Lent, grandson of Edward L. Lent, tapping trees for gooseneck system in Lent family sugarbush in March 2002.
The gooseneck system was sporadically used during the 1920s and 1930s in the more hilly and mountainous sugarbushes of northeastern United States. Until recently, this technology was not known to have made it as far west as Wisconsin. However, in 2003, cultural resource management staff of the USDA Forest Service in Wisconsin discovered the long abandoned remains of a maple sugaring operation in the hills of southwestern Ashland County. The remains of this former sugarhouse and storage building included over one thousand, four-foot long sections of the tubing system, as well as the gooseneck connecting pieces, coils of suspension wire and other debris. Today the site appears as a series of building foundations in an overgrown clearing at the base of a maple covered ridge, a perfect location of the gravity fed pipeline system.
A fallen over stack of thousands of sections of metal pipeline at the remains of an abandoned sugarbush on the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, southern Ashland County, Wisconsin.
Based on the age of the other artifacts at the site, including three sizes of metal syrup tins, the use of this sugarbush roughly dates to between 1915 and 1930. The U.S. Forest Service acquired the land in 1934, shortly after it had been logged and most of the large mature maple trees removed. As the only known example of the use of the gooseneck system in Wisconsin, the Forest Service has recognized its historical importance and is protecting the site as part of planned forest management activities. In addition, research into the history of the site and use of the pipeline continues.
This article originally appeared in a 2005 edition of the Wisconsin Maple News.
The 1940s and 1950s were a time of invention and innovation in the maple industry. One of the innovations brought to the industry by Wisconsin was the Central Evaporator Plant. Initiated by Wisconsin’s own Maple King, Adin Reynolds, the Central Evaporator Plant operated like a cheese factory in which maple sap, like milk, was transported from a variety of sap producers to a large processing facility where sap was combined and converted into maple syrup. As with the cheese factory where milk producers were paid based on the butterfat content of their milk, sap producers were paid based on the sugar content of their sap.
The Reynolds family had always been maple producers, making syrup and sugar from maple trees in their own sugarbush. But in 1946, Adin Reynolds decided to greatly expand his production and he had a novel idea how to do it. He began in 1947 by building a new sugarhouse next to his house, not far from State Highway 45. He then solicited farmers near his Antigo home to tap their maple woods for sap and deliver it to his sugarhouse, where they were paid based on the percentage of sugar per gallon of sap.
According to his son, Juan Reynolds, Adin had no problem convincing area farmers to sell their sap. Located near the intersection of Langlade, Shawano and Marathon Counties, the countryside around the Aniwa plant is marked with dairy farms interspersed between stands of second growth sugar maples. Moreover, the months of March and April were the slow and muddy seasons for most farm families. Farmers had the two most important components for sap production – trees and available labor to tap and gather.
Reynolds’ Aniwa operation quickly grew, expanding from two to three evaporators in 1949 to four evaporators in 1962 making syrup from 75,000 taps. Other maple producers followed Reynolds’ lead, and with his advice and equipment sales set up their own Central Evaporator Plants in the area. Notable among these were plants run by George Klement in Polar and Sidney Maas in Tilleda. Reynolds later purchased the Polar and Tilleda plants, along with another Central Evaporator Plant in Kingsley, Michigan. At their peak in the mid-1960s, the Reynolds Sugarbush was making 30 to 40,000 gallons of syrup a year from at least 160,000 taps on 14 evaporators in these four Central Evaporator Plants.
Another Central Evaporator Plant went into operation in 1962 in Price County near the village of Ogema. Ray Norlin and his brother-in-law Louis Motley expanded their small operation to 2800 taps and began to buy sap from 7,000 more taps making as much as 3000 gallons of syrup a year. A portion of this syrup was sold in bottles and cans under the label Sunny Hills Maple Syrup; however, the bulk of it was sold wholesale in barrels to Reynolds Sugarbush.
Image of Ray Norlin’s Central Evaporator Plant near Ogema, Wisconsin in the mid – 1960s.
Although he was the most successful Central Evaporation Plant operator, Adin Reynolds was not necessarily the first maple producer to buy large volumes of sap in the late 1940s and early 1950s. To the west in Central Minnesota, the Holbert Brothers also instigated a sap buying program in 2947 for their Mille Lacs Maple Products Company. Although the sap buying and syrup making portion of his business was short lived, ending in 1950, Sherman Holbert’s operation was very large for the time, processing sap on two large evaporators from as many as 20,000 taps in the Mille Lacs Lake region. Holbert also developed a Midwestern market by buying large volumes of bulk syrup to be sold to General Foods for the Log Cabin brand of blended syrup. Holbert left the maple business entirely by 1953, opening the door for the Reynolds Sugarbush to assume the large General Foods bulk syrup contracts.
Over the course of the 1950s word of the Central Evaporator Plant and its successes in Wisconsin spread among maple producers in the northeast and New England states. In the traditionally larger maple producing states like Vermont, New York, and Pennsylvania, sap buying was generally unheard of at the time, especially on the scale being carried out in Wisconsin. But by the 1960s, , the Central Evaporator Plant, along with plastic tubing and the invention of the antibacterial paraformaldehyde tap hole pellet, was one of the hot topics of discussion among industry leaders. In fact, C.O. Willits, the maple syrup industry’s leading researcher wrote that “the current trend toward central evaporator plants has marked a new era in the maple industry”.
The growth of the Reynolds Sugarbush empire and the purchase of additional Central Evaporator Plants in 1960, 1963, and 1965 was in large part a result of the contract Reynolds secured with General Foods Corporation in 1959 to supply thousands of gallons of syrup for the making of Log Cabin brand table syrup. In order to meet General Foods demand, Reynolds Sugarbush produced tens of thousands of gallons of syrup and purchased many times more gallons of bulk syrup from Wisconsin producers and across the maple producing regions of the United States and Canada.
Through the 1950s and 1960s, the popularity of the Central Evaporator Plants, along with Reynolds Sugarbush’s promotional efforts and syrup buying program led to a significant increase in the production of maple syrup in Wisconsin. Production grew so much that, by 1970, Wisconsin moved into position as the third greatest syrup producing state behind Vermont and New York. It comes as no surprise that the idea for the Central Evaporator Plant was born in Wisconsin. As the most prominent dairy state in the country, most of Wisconsin’s rural residents in the 1950s and 1960s were familiar with the organization of the dairy industry and cheese factories and took to the concept readily. Likewise, many sap producers were dairy farmers and had both the equipment and technical knowledge needed for moving large volumes of perishable sap.
Reynolds later closed the Polar plant and sold the Kingsley, Michigan and Tilleda plants back their owners in the early 1970s. Sidney Maas continued to operate the Tilleda sugarhouse as a Central Evaporator Plant through the 1980s on sap from 8200 of his own taps and sap purchased from 5000 additional taps. In 1993 Maas sold the sugarhouse to Charlie Wagner who had developed a successful syrup operation near his home in Peshtigo and wanted to expand. Aware of the sap buying history of the operation and the available sap resources in the area, Wagner revised the sap buying program, convincing many of the earlier sap producing families under the Reynolds era to again tap their trees and sell their sap. Today, the Tilleda plant uses reverse osmosis and two large oil fired evaporators to make syrup from as many as 40,000 taps, over 90 percent of which is purchased sap. The Tilleda plant is particularly notable in the history of Wisconsin maple production. With nearly continuous syrup production since Sidney Maas built the sugar house in the 1940s, the Tilleda sugarhouse has the honor of being one of the oldest continually used sugar houses in Wisconsin, it is one of the largest U.S. sugarhouses by volume west of Maine. In addition, it is probably the oldest Central Evaporator Plant still in operation in North America.
Only a handful of sugarhouses that follow the plan of a Central Evaporator Plant operating primarily or entirely on purchased sap, still exist in the U.S. However it is not uncommon for commercial producers to augment their own sap supplies with some sap purchased from neighbors and reliable sap producers, ultimately the result of an idea that began over fifty years ago in Wisconsin.
The 
