The Beginnings of The Vermont Maid Brand of Blended Syrup

Readers of this website may recall a similar post in the past outlining the relationship of the Vermont Maid Syrup company to other Vermont maple syrup and blended syrup companies. However, after seeing an August 2019 local-interest news clip from a Burlington, Vermont television station incorrectly describe the beginnings of the Vermont Maid company I thought I would write a more detailed, and accurate accounting of the company’s early years. Unfortunately, the presenters in the news piece didn’t do their research and repeated a popular, but inaccurate, narrative that Vermont Maid was started by the Welch Brothers Maple Products Company in Burlington in 1906 and was the first blended syrup on the market. Moreover, this news bit featured a representative from the Vermont Historical Society, in this case the Executive Director, affording the story a bit of unwarranted authority.

Earliest version of Vermont Maid Syrup tin and label from Essex Junction period, ca. 1920-1923. From the Tom McCrumm Collection.

The true story goes a bit more like this. Vermont Maid Syrup began as a brand of the Vermont Maple Syrup Company in Essex Junction, Vermont in 1919. Going back even further, the Vermont Maple Syrup Company was a syrup bottling and blending company started by Fletcher N. Johnson and his partners in 1916 in Essex Junction.[1]

Then on April 7, 1919 Fletcher sold his controlling interest in Vermont Maple Syrup Company, including the Essex Junction facilities, to George C. Cary, at that time one of the company’s minor shareholders.[2]

Group of Four Vermont Maid Syrup Ads that Appeared in the Muskogee Daily Phoenix Newspaper in February and March 1922.

Soon after in late April 1919 the Vermont Maid name was registered as a trademark by the Vermont Maple Syrup Company of Essex Junction and advertisements selling Vermont Maid blended cane and maple syrup began to appear at least as early as the fall of 1921.[3]

The first advertisement I have been able to find featuring the iconic logo of a young maiden at the center of an art nouveau styled shield and sporting a white bonnet in front of an outdoor scene of buildings, field, trees, and sky date to February 1922.[4]

Sugar Bird Syrup Tin, ca. 1916-1919. From the Tom McCrumm Collection.

Following the conclusion of a court case settling a disagreement between F.N. Johnson and George C. Cary over another syrup brand (Sugar Bird Syrup) that Cary incorrectly believed to be included in the sale of the Vermont Maple Syrup Company, Cary and his co-investors reorganized the Vermont Maple Syrup Company in June of 1922 and in February 1923 moved the company from Essex Junction to St. Johnsbury.[5]

Vermont Maid Syrup bottle and label from the St. Johnsbury period.

In 1926 F. N. Johnson returns to the story with a newly formed American Maple Corporation with the purchase of the Welch Brothers Maple Products Company of Burlington, Vermont, including their Pine and Marble Street bottling plant. That same year the American Maple Corporation also acquired Cary’s Vermont Maple Syrup Company and the Vermont Maid brand. By late 1926 or early 1927 the Vermont Maid brand had undoubtedly moved from St. Johnsbury to the old Welch Brothers plant on Pine and Marble Streets in Burlington. Following their various mergers and acquisitions the American Maple Products officially settled on the name of Vermont Maple Syrup Company in the spring of 1927.[6]

Large size single loop handle bottle with early, post-bonnet logo from Burlington bottling plant , ca. 1928-1932.

The Vermont Maple Syrup Company (formerly American Maple Corporation) did not hang onto the Vermont Maid brand for long and in October 1928 the Vermont Maple Syrup Company, including the Vermont Maid brand and the Burlington plant, was sold to Penick & Ford, Inc., a large national syrup company with products and interests in molasses, cane syrup, and corn syrup. The Vermont Maid brand continued to be bottled under Penick & Ford ownership in Burlington until it was sold to R. J. Reynolds in 1965. The plant continued to be used by RJ Reynolds Foods for bottling Vermont Maid syrup for another ten years, before the plant was closed and the bottle facilities moved to New Jersey in 1975.[7]

As stated at the beginning of this post, Vermont Maid Syrup or the the Vermont Maid brand was never a brand or part of the Welch Brothers Maple Products Company in Burlington. It is true that Vermont Maid was bottled in the same plant that was built for and once used by the Welch Brothers company, but Vermont Maid was neither started by Welch Brothers nor ever owned and operated by Welch Brothers. For some it may seem like splitting hairs, but good history is based on good research and it is important to get the story right. The confusion about that comes from the various companies and facilities that were consolidated and purchased by the American Maple Corporation/Vermont Maple Syrup Company. As for the idea that starting in 1906 the Welch Brothers first came up with the idea to bottle blended syrup combining maple and cane syrup couldn’t be further from the truth. There were literally dozens of syrup blenders at work at the same time if not long before the Welch Brothers formed in 1890.[8]

For collectors of maple syrup and Vermont Maid Syrup items, it is possible to find earliest tins and bottles with labels showing the Vermont Maid maiden wearing the white bonnet. These date from the short-lived Essex Junction period (ca. 1920 to 1923) and the St. Johnsbury period (1923 to 1926/27). The earliest labels also feature the words “VERMONT MAID” in an arched script above the word “SYRUP” at the top of the label. By the early Burlington period (1926/27 to 1929) the maiden has lost her white bonnet and the word “SYRUP” is no long present at the top of the label under “Vermont Maid”. All three of these earliest labels include a white panel or box with red print at the bottom of the label stating the town in which it was packed.

Left to right, earliest Vermont Maid Syrup labels. Left – Essex Junction period, middle – St. Johnsbury period, right – Burlington period.

Early bottle shapes include a clear glass round bodied, long neck form (see image near top if post) without a loop handle. Later a round bodied bottle with a single loop handle and reinforced lip at the junction of the neck and shoulder. It is not clear if the single loop handle bottle was used at the Essex Junction or St. Johnsbury bottling plant, but the single loop bottle was definitely in use in the early years of the Burlington bottling plant, ca. 1928-1932.

Example of early single loop handle bottle, ca. 1929-1932.

By 1930 the white box stating the location of manufacturing has disappeared. Advertisements from these early periods indicate that Vermont Maid syrup was packed in both tins and bottles with three sizes of tins and two sizes of bottle, as well as a sample size bottle.

Example of large size metal tin (ca. 1929-1932) and sample size glass bottle (ca. 1928-1929).

By 1932 the background behind the maiden has changed from an outdoor scene to a solid color and a lighter colored panel below the image of the maiden is replaced by a solid green background label.

Vermont Maid Syrup label with solid background in shield surrounding maiden and solid green primary label, ca 1932-1935.

The early bottles in both large and small sizes have a single loop handle.  The slightly flattened, double loop handle bottle was patented and introduced in 1933, replacing the round single loop handle bottles.

1933 patent sheet for double loop handle bottle and example of early double loop handle bottle with 1935 copyright on logo.

After 1933 the Vermont Maid label witnessed subtle changes, most notably and useful for collectors, the addition and regular updating of the copyright date at the bottom of the label, with 1935, 1939, and 1942. Depending on the state labeling requirements for the state where the syrup was to be, labels varied based on their different ingredients and the amounts that were used. Some simply said “Made from Cane and Maple Sugar.” While others listed the percentages (85% cane and 15% maple) or in the case of a 1942 copyright label 50% Cane, 25% (Dextrose, Maltose, and Dextrines) and 25% Maple Sugar.

Examples of 1930s and 1940s Vermont Maid Syrup labels from double loop handle bottles with copyright years marked on label, left to right 1935, 1939, 1942, 1949.
Vermont Maid Syrup example of standardized bottle for use by blended syrup companies during later years of World War II.

During the years of World War II, the War Production Board – Containers Division required all blended syrup companies to use a standardized bottle shape and size. Production of glass containers was limited by the government to a small range of specific bottle shapes and sizes to allow glass manufacturers to focus their efforts on more important wartime production and not creating specialty glass containers. As a result, like all other blended syrup, from around 1943 to 1947 Vermont Maid was sold in what was sometimes called the “stubby round” bottle, more commonly recognized today as a molasses or vinegar bottle. Following the end of the war, Vermont Maid returned to being bottled in the double loop handle bottle. Use of this bottle shape continued well into the late 1960s and possibly the early 1970s.

One might wonder from where did the idea for the maiden label and logo come? Having lost the right to use the Sugar Bird Syrup brand in 1921, George Cary and the Vermont Maple Syrup Company needed a new logo for their blended syrup and somehow settled on the Vermont Maid name. It is striking how similar the initial bonneted maiden on the Vermont Maid Syrup logo was to the bonneted maiden of the Sun-Maid Raisins logo, also introduced around this time.

Side-by-side comparison of early Vermont Maid maiden with white bonnet and Sun Maid maiden with red bonnet.

Sun-Maid Raisins began to display a maiden on their logo in 1915, predating the Vermont Maid Syrup logo, and the similarities between the two labels are. Interestingly, the image of the girl in the Sun-Maid Raisins logo is based on a real person named Lorraine Collett, although her likeness evolved over time. In contrast, it is not known if the Vermont Maid Syrup maiden was similarly based on a real person or was more of an imaginary caricature of a persona, more like the fictitious Betty Crocker.

There have been other uses of the name Vermont Maid as a brand, such as for cottage cheese, and there are other table syrups featuring maidens and the word “Maid” in their name like Dixie Maid, Kitchen Maid, and Yankee Maid. These all date to a period after this Vermont Maid Syrup began.

Example of tin for Towle’s Vermont Maid Pure Sap Maple Syrup, ca. 1910-1915. From the collection of Scott Benjamine.

But perhaps the most likely candidate for the source of the name and image was from an earlier Vermont Maid Pure Sap Maple Syrup that was bottled and canned by the Towle’s Maple Products Company in St. Johnsbury and St. Paul between 1910 and 1914. The Towle’s Company was more famous for their Log Cabin brand of syrup that came in cabin shaped metal tins. Towle’s bottled their syrups in their St. Paul plant until a fire in the fall of 1909 nearly gutted the facility. Needing a place to quickly set up a new plant while they rebuilt. George Cary of the Cary Maple Sugar Company sold the Towle Company his St. Johnsbury plant. Cary at that time was buying millions of pounds of maple sugar for resale to the tobacco industry and had not yet entered the syrup bottling and blending side of the maple industry. The Towle Company operated in St. Johnsbury for five years (1910 to 1914), bottling both their iconic Log Cabin Syrup label, as well as a host of other labels, including Towle’s Vermont Maid Pure Sap Maple Syrup, which unlike Towle’s Log Cabin Syrup was supposed to a 100% pure maple syrup. Considering this was in the period after the enactment of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, when testing and prosecution of adulteration was common, it is likely true that the Towle’s Vermont Maid syrup was 100% pure maple syrup and not a blend.

There is no strong indication that the Towle’s Vermont Maid Syrup label was used beyond the Towle Company’s presence in St. Johnsbury, although there are some grocers’ advertisements that continued to list Towle’s Vermont Maid Syrup for sale as late as 1918, possibly selling older stock that was bottled and canned a few years earlier. George Cary and his co-investors were certainly familiar with the Towle’s Vermont Maid brand and that it was no long in use when they trademarked the name in 1919.

For the student of advertising history and collector of Vermont Maid Syrup bottles and tins, the label and bottle shapes evolved over the years, sometimes reflecting the different ownerships and bottling facilities and sometimes reflecting the changing tastes in packaging design and function. What has not changed is the presence of a female maiden centered on a green panel, emphasizing the well-recognized color of the state of Vermont.

 

——————————————————

[1] “New Maple Syrup Industry,” Rutland News October 17, 1916; “New Vermont Corporations: Canton Bros. of Barre and Vermont Maple Syrup Co. of Essex Junction,” The Barre Daily Times September 28, 1916;

[2] “ ‘Sugar Bird Brand’ Causes Suit in Court: George Cary Interested in Maple Sugar Suit in U.S. Court,” The Caledonian Record March 18, 1921.

[3] The Pittsburg Press September 30, 1921; Springfield Reporter December 29, 1921;

[4] Muskogee Daily Phoenix February 28, 1922; Muskogee Daily Phoenix April 11, 1922; Muskogee Daily Phoenix April 22, 1922; Muskogee Daily Phoenix April 15, 1922.

[5] “VT. Maple Syrup CO. had been Incorporated in St. Johnsbury,” The Barre Daily Times June 19,1922; The Landmark (White River Junction) February 22, 1923; Groton Times February 23, 1923.

[6] “Welch Retires from Maple Co.,” Burlington Free Press July 23, 1926; “Maple Corp. Has $600,000 Capital,” Burlington Free Press September 27, 1926; “American Maple Corporation to Put Out 2942 Preferred Shares,” Burlington Free Press November 11, 1926; Burlington Free Press November 23, 1926; Burlington Free Press February 28, 1927.

[7] “Maple Syrup Co. Sold to New Yorkers,” Burlington Free Press October 12, 1928; Penick & Ford Acquires Company,” Brooklyn Daily Eagle October 18, 1928; “R J Reynolds Tobacco Buying Penick & Ford LTD,” Burlington Free Press March 2, 1965; “RJ Reynolds Foods To Close Vermont Maid Syrup Plant, Burlington,” Burlington Free Press August 23, 1975.

[8] “Wanted Maple Syrup!,” Orleans County Monitor July 28, 1890; “A New Maple Sugar Company,” Burlington Free Press January 22, 1891.

Early Concerns with Lead in Maple Syrup – The Case Against 52 Barrels of Syrup in 1939

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.

Recommended Reads: Maple History from a Local or Regional Perspective

Every few years a new book comes out on the culture or history of maple sugaring and maple syrup many which are highlighted on this website. In addition to these new and easily found books are a number of classics that those interested in maple history may want to look for and add to their collections. Here are four such books written with a local or regional focus that were all published over ten years ago, some of which are now out of print.

From oldest to newest, first we have the book When the Sugar Bird Sings: The History of Maple Syrup in Lanark County by Claudia Smith. Published in 1996, this great little book features the history and stories of maple sugar and syrup making in and around Lanark County, Ontario. It is illustrated with numerous historic photos of Lanark County maple operations and boasts of Lanark County as the Maple Capital or Ontario. While out of print, this book can be found used online at such sources as www.abebooks.com and www.amazon.com.

Next up in the lineup is a massive 578-page tome from 1998 titled Reynolds, Maple and History: Fit For Kings by the late Lynn H. Reynolds from Aniwa, Wisconsin. This book, a labor of love for Lynn Reynolds that highlights the events and importance of the Reynolds family and their Reynolds Sugarbush, was privately published in a limited run of 450 copies by the Reynolds family, sadly only a few weeks following Lynn’s passing. In the 1960s and 1970s the Reynolds Sugarbush was the single largest maple syrup producing company in United States or Canada, making maple syrup from well over 125,000 taps. The three men of the company, father Adin Reynolds (1905-1987), and brothers Lynn H. Reynolds (1936-1998) and Juan L. Reynolds (1930-2008) were all prominent leaders in the maple industry during their heyday and both Adin and Lynn were inducted into the Maple Syrup Producers Hall of Fame.

Written from the memory and point of view of Lynn Reynolds, the book tells many histories in a side-by-side chronological fashion with the story of the Reynolds family presented in one font,  maple syrup industry history in another font, and general local, Wisconsin, US, and World history presented in a third font.  For the maple historian the book is chock full of names, dates and descriptions of events in the history of both the Wisconsin and North American maple industries. The Reynolds sections of the books recount the interesting growth of the Reynolds company as maple industry juggernaut despite of being located in north central Wisconsin, far from new England or Quebec.

Lynn Reynolds was not a shy man nor one to temper his opinions when they mattered to him, so unsurprisingly the book does suffer from a bit of Reynolds exceptionalism, but in all honesty, that is not without some degree of merit, since the Reynolds family was very influential and the Reynolds Sugarbush was pushing the scale of maple operations at that period in maple industry history. If you can find a copy of this book snatch it up immediately. I have used my copy so extensively for reference I even built my own index for easier use, available here. My copy has seen so much use (in spite of being purchased new) that it is coming apart at the binding, so maybe at some point in the future I will scan the whole book and seek permission from the Reynolds family to make it available here.

Third in this list is the book Maple Sugaring In New Hampshire by Barbara Mills Lassonde. Published in 2004 by Arcadia Publishing as part of their Images of America series, this book is still in print and available at the Arcadia Publishing website. Like all books in the Images of America series, Maple Sugaring in New Hampshire is a photo history book with hundreds of great images and accompanying captions tracing the history of maple production in New Hampshire from the colonial days up into the 21st century.

Lastly, is the very well researched book Spotza, Keelers, and Stirred Sugar: The Legacy of Maple Sugaring in Somerset County, Pennsylvania by Mark Ware. Released in 2006 by the Historical and Genealogical Society of Somerset County, this well illustrated book presents years of research on the methods, material culture, and economic history of sugaring in a small but very active corner of Pennsylvania. With his position as the Executive Director of the Somerset County Historical Center, Mark Ware has taken the time to look deeply into the records, family histories, and artifacts and antiques. That knowledge is shared both in this book and in the exhibit of reconstructed 1860s sugar camp at the Somerset Historical Center. This book can be purchased online from the Somerset Historical Center website.

For those interested in maple history books with a broader, less regional scope, check out my earlier post Recommended Reads: Excellent Sources on the Culture and History of Maple Syrup.

Maple Syrup Producers Manuals – A History

I was recently given the opportunity to contribute a chapter on the history of maple sugar and syrup production in the upcoming third edition of the North American Maple Syrup Producers Manual. This led me to look into the history and progression of such manuals and government guides in the United States.

U.S.D.A., Bureau of Forestry Bulletin 59, The Maple Sugar Industry, published in 1905.

The earliest stand-alone bulletin, guide, or pamphlet produced by a government agency comes from the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1905 under the title The Maple Sugar Industry as Bulletin No. 59, published through the then Bureau of Forestry (today known as the U.S. Forest Service). Written by William F. Fox and William F. Hubbard, this bulletin was less of a guide or manual and more of a report or description of the current state of the maple industry. It was also notably dense in its description of the trees and desired conditions of the sugarbush and fairly light in its discussion of the process and equipment employed in gathering maple sap and making maple syrup and sugar. This is not especially surprising considering both Fox and Hubbard’s backgrounds as foresters and not sugarmakers. In fact, as best as my research can tell, neither Fox or Hubbard had any real experience as maple producers, both as youths or adults.

Image of William J. Fox while assisting Gifford Pinchot and the USDA with the influential Township 40 survey in the Adirondacks, establishing a model at the time for systematic and sustainable forestry.

That is not to say that these men were without some knowledge, understanding, or admiration for maple sugar making, quite the opposite. William F. Fox, who was listed as collaborator for Bureau of Forestry and not a federal employee, was in fact the Superintendent of Forests for the State of New York, and a confidant of Gifford Pinchot and prominent leader in the growing field of forestry. Fox was also a decorated Civil War hero and well-know chronicler of the War. Fox first wrote about and advocated for maple sugar and syrup as an important forest product in the 1898 Annual Report of the Commissioners of Fisheries, Game and Forest of the State of New York. Prior to Bulletin 59, Fox published other writings and made presentations to such notable groups as the Vermont Maple Sugar Maker’s Association in the early 1900s.

Image of William J. Hubbard from the 1905 Washington Times story about his drowning in the Potomac River.

Like Fox, William F. Hubbard also appears to have lacked any direct experience with sugaring and instead was well-educated, young Forestry Assistant with a Doctorate in forestry from Germany. Although Bulletin 59 was published in the later months of 1905, Hubbard tragically died in July of that year, a few months before the bulletin was released. At the young age of 28 Hubbard drowned when his canoe overturned near the Great Falls of the Potomac River a few miles north of Washington, DC.

U.S.D.A. Farmer’s Bulletin No. 252, Maple Sugar and Sirup, published in 1906.

In the following year, 1906, under the authorship of William F. Hubbard, the U.S. Department of Agriculture posthumously issued a new Farmer’s Bulletin No. 252 titled Maple Sugar and Sirup hat was a n abridged version of the information in Bulletin 59. These USDA bulletins from the federal government were new to the maple industry and not all were impressed. Maple equipment manufacturer Gustav H. Grimm, and one of the most influential voices in the industry at the time was quoted as saying that much of the information in Bulletin 252 was “way-off” and outdated.

U.S.D.A., Bureau of Chemistry Bulletin No. 134, Maple-Sap Sirup: Its Manufacture, Composition, and Effect of Environment Thereon, published 1910.

In 1910 the U.S. Department of Agriculture Bureau of Chemistry issued Bulletin No. 134 written by A. Hugh Bryan, a well-known chemist in their laboratory. This bulletin titled Maple-Sap Sirup: Its Manufacture, Composition, and Effects of Environment Thereon included a short description of the process of making maple sugar but largely discussed the methods and results of detailed chemical analyses of maple sap and maple syrup and sugar.

 

U.S.D.A. Farmer’s Bulletin No. 516, The Production of Maple Sirup and Sugar, published in 1912.

In spite of his passing in 1905, Hubbard’s writing, but curiously not Fox’s (who was not a USDA employee), continued to serve as the foundation for subsequent releases of new bulletins by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In 1912, Hubbard’s earlier bulletin was combined with Bryan’s in U.S. Department of Agriculture Farmer’s Bulletin No. 516 under the title The Production of Maple Sirup and Sugar. In comparison to earlier bulletins, No. 516 was more manual-like in its format and information, suggesting that, despite his being listed as the Chief of the Sugar Laboratory and a chemist, A. Hugh Bryan had expanded his breadth of knowledge with regard to the maple industry.  Farmer’s Bulletin No. 516 was revised and reissued in 1918 under the same title and authorship.

U.S.D.A. Farmer’s Bulletin No. 134, published in 1924.

In 1924, Bryan and Hubbard’s Bulletin 516 was re-issued as Farmer’s Bulletin 1366 with the addition of a third author, a U.S.D.A. Bureau of Plant Industry Chemist named Sidney F. Sherwood. With a 1924 publication date, Bulletin 1366 came out after the death of both the primary authors. William F Hubbard had died in 1905 and A. Hugh Bryan died in 1920 at age 46, a victim of the influenza pandemic that struck North America from 1918-1920. It was left to Sidney Sheppard to carry the Bulletin forward.

With its release in 1924 Farmers’ Bulletin 1366 was made available for a mere 5 cents, although many copies were distributed to sugar makers free of charge. Bulletin 1366 continued as the U.S.D.A. guide to sugarmakers for another 20 years with Bryan, Hubbard, and Sherwood as the authors. It was reissued in 1935 and 1937 under the description of “slightly revised” although it is unclear who was responsible for the revision work.

There was a lull in the updating and issuance of maple syrup bulletins or guides by the USDA during the war years and for some time after. This may have been in reaction to the increase in similar publications coming out of the research and extension branches of many universities and state departments of agriculture or forestry in the maple syrup region starting in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s (Vermont being an exception with department of agriculture booklets dating to the 19-teens).

With the assistance and leadership of Charles O. Willits, the US Department of Agriculture got back online in 1958 with the issuance of a new comprehensive manual for producers, published as Agricultural Handbook No. 134. Willits first began his long association with the maple industry when he came to work in the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station in the late 1930s where he began by addressing the concern with lead contamination in syrup. With a move to the USDA Eastern Regional Utilization Research and Development Laboratory in Philadelphia as an analytical chemist in 1940 followed by a request to lead a new maple syrup unit following World War II, Willits was put in a position to learn as much as he could about all aspects of maple syrup production.

U.S.D.A. Agricultural Handbook No. 134, published in 1958.

Willits assembled the considerable new information he had gathered and absorbed into a new and comprehensive manual for the maple syrup industry. Published in 1958, under the title Maple Sirup Producers Manual, the title was a well-chosen reflection of its difference from the previous USDA bulletins, featuring dozens or illustrative photographs with a focus on bringing the maple industry information on the newest methods, equipment, and science and technology available. Willits revised and expanded the manual in 1963, nearly doubling the page numbers over the 1958 version.

U.S.D.A. Agricultural Handbook No. 134, first published in 1963.

Upon reflection, it is impressive (to me at least) that Willits research, assembled, and wrote the entire manual himself, at a time when he was extremely busy with coordinating and conducting research, planning and hosting the triennial conference on maple products. In 1965 another revised version came out under Willits’ name and ten years later with the assistance of a second author, Claude H. Hills, a third version was released. The purchase price of the Agricultural Handbook No. 134 was initially 60 cents in 1958, although again, many copies were distributed at no cost. The revised editions from the 1960s saw the price jump to 70 cents, and then to $2.50 with the 1976 edition.

First Edition of the North American Maple Syrup Producers Manual, published as The Ohio State University Extension Bulletin 856 in 1996.

With the retirement of C.O. Willits in the early 1980s and the discontinuation of the maple syrup unit at the USDA Eastern Region Lab in Philadelphia, the maple industry was left without a champion for continuation of the Maple Syrup Producers Manual.  Recognizing the need and desire to continue to provide the industry with an up to date manual, participants of the 1988 North American Maple Syrup Council formed a committee to make plans to begin the revision process and bring forward a new version of the manual. With an eye towards serving the entire maple community, both in the United States and Canada, the following version of the manual was titled The North American Maple Syrup Producers Manual. In contrast to past manuals and bulletins that were written by one or two or three individuals, the North American Manual would have separate chapters authored by individual experts, sharing the workload and allowing authors to focus on their areas of knowledge and expertise. In the end it took more years than anyone expected for the new manual to be released but in 1996, with the help of The Ohio State University Extension, the North American Maple Syrup Producers Manual was published in both hard cover and soft cover as Extension Bulletin 856.

Second Edition of the North American Maple Syrup Producers Manual, published as The Ohio State University Extension Bulletin 856 in 2006.

Ten years later in 2006 coming in at a whopping 329 pages, a new and improved, revised Second Edition of the North American Maple Syrup Producers Manual was released, again with the assistance of The Ohio State University Extension. In the not too distant future (sometime in 2021),  we will see the Third Edition of the North American Maple Syrup Producers Manual released, continuing this tradition and important work of bringing together useful and valuable up to date information on maple syrup production and distributing it to the maple producers in North America.

 

History of Maple Syrup Cans – Color Lithographed Cans

For much of the twentieth century maple syrup was packaged for sale and shipment in metal containers. The first half of the century was witness to maple producers pasting paper labels onto bare metal gallon, half-gallon, and quart-sized tins. But by the mid-point of the century a new, more attractive and colorful option came onto the market.

Color lithographed square tins with maple sugaring scenes were first introduced for individual maple producers in Vermont for the 1948 season’s crop. Sugarmaker S. Allen Soule of Fairfield, Vermont developed the cans in 1947 after seeing olive oil sold in gallon size square tins with colorful graphics on the exterior, known as double O tins in the can industry.

1947 advertisement for S. Allen Soule’s maple syrup showing his new color lithographed can, which made available for sale to maple producers in the 1948 season.

In a March 2019 interview with S. Allen Soule’s son, John Soule shared that his father contacted the Empire Can Company in Brooklyn, New York and asked if they could make a can similar to the double O can, but for maple syrup. Empire Can said they could, and S. Allen Soule and his wife Betty worked with a New England artist to design the exterior featuring a sugaring scene on the two larger faces of the can and a short history of maple syrup and a few maple recipes on the side panels. The front panel read “Pure Vermont Maple Syrup” and initially included a blank white rectangle where the individual maple syrup producer could stamp their name and address.

Image of the four sizes of cans offered for sale by S. Allen Soule. Note the blue oval for syrup makers to add their name and address.

Of course, you could order a stamp with your sugarbush name from S. Allen Soule to go with your order of empty cans. A few years later the blank white rectangle was replaced with a more attractive blank blue oval. The initial cans were made in one gallon, a half-gallon and one-quart sizes with the focus on pushing the smaller quart size can as a more attractive size for tourists and more distant markets in the urban areas.

It should be noted that S. Allen Soule and his can and syrup packing and selling operation (later named Fairfield Farm) was not the same company as the George H. Soule evaporator and maple sugaring equipment company. George H. Soule and S. Allen Soule were cousins and both from the Fairfield area, but they were distinctly different families and businesses, despite the similar names and even the later reuse of the Fairfield Farms name by S. Allen Soule in the 1960s following the closing of G.H. Soule’s Fairfield Farms in the 1950s.

1967 Maple Digest advertisements for the Empire Can Company showing the three styles of cans it was offering, including the style developed by S. Allen Soule in 1947.

Following the success of S. Allen Soule’s introduction of the lithographed square tin, the Empire Can Company got into the business of directly marketing and selling color lithographed tins to maple producers in the mid-1950s, albeit with a different and even more generic design and label, to appeal to maple producers in states outside of Vermont. According to S. Allen Soule’s son, Empire Can’s entry in the can market as a seller and not just as a can maker was to the surprise of S. Allen Soule who was working under the belief that he had an exclusive arrangement with Empire Can Company.

Empire Can Company’s color lithographed generic maple syrup can.

 

1957 ad for the Stern Can Company’s color lithographed maple syrup can.

Empire Can’s entry in to the maple syrup can market was soon followed by the appearance of additional stock color lithographed square cans from the Stern Can Company of Boston, Massachusetts in the later 1950s and the Eastern Can Company of Passaic, New Jersey in the early 1960s. Maple producers had the options of buying totally generic tins or buying tins with labels of Pure Maple Syrup with their respective state names. States with specific cans printed with their names generally included Vermont, New York, Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

Eastern Can Company square color lithographed cans introduced in 1967.

By the early 1970s production of stock square cans for the maple syrup industry had fallen off and it was becoming increasingly difficult to purchase square color lithographed cans in the United States. The Empire Can Company was the last large volume can producer and was not producing enough cans to meet industry needs. In addition, new production methods were resulting in more and more defective cans. Concerns about can availability worsened when the Empire Can Company announced it was getting out of the maple syrup can business in 1978.

In response, the Leader Evaporator Company formed Maple Country Can Company and in a controversial move, secured a public loan in combination with private financing to purchase and move the Empire Can Company equipment to a new facility under construction in St. Albans, Vermont. Maple Country Can Co. was a short-lived venture and closed its doors a few years later in 1980, selling its canning equipment to the New England Container Company in Swanton, Vermont.

Packaging maple syrup metal cans, including a reintroduction of the log cabin shaped can, continues to this day but the introduction of plastic containers in 1970 and the greater use of smaller and fancy glass containers in a wide range of shapes and sizes has pushed packaging in metal cans to the background.

1953 advertisement for the new Quebec round can for pure maple syrup.

In Quebec, a generic color lithographed can was introduced for maple syrup makers in the early 1950s. Moving away from the industry standard of a plain square metal can with glued on paper labels, the Quebec Ministry of Agriculture held a design competition in 1951 asking for submissions with a maple sugaring scene to illustrate their new 26 ounce round cans. According to one telling of this history, it is not exactly clear what was the initial winning design or if there was more than one design chosen, and unfortunately the name of the wining artist has yet to be discovered.

Examples of a range of different generic pure Quebec maple syrup round cans.

Over time, the design of the standard stock round can for maple syrup in Quebec has evolved and the design has changed. Unlike in the U.S., in Quebec square tins became less common.  With the assistance of the Ministry of Agriculture and the support of the Quebec Maple Producers Federation, round tins became the norm and are now something of an iconic symbol of the Quebec maple industry.

Image of the current version of the stock pure Quebec maple syrup round can.
1920’s image of a Highland Pure Maple Sap Syrup round can from the Cary Maple Sugar Company out of St. Johnsbury, Vermont.

Although Quebec has embraced the round can, they were not the first to use if for packaging maple syrup. Maple King, George C. Cary was canning pure maple syrup in round, soup can-sized tins with color lithographed exteriors as early as 1923. Before Cary’s use of a round lithographed can, the Towle’s Log Cabin syrup company was canning blended maple and cane syrup starting in the late 19-teens. The Towle’s Log Cabin company color lithographed cans initially were limited to the Log Cabin Brand in its colorful cabin shaped tins with interesting scenes printed on all sides. In the early 1920s, The Towle’s company also began marketing Wigwam brand blended maple and cane syrup in a unique wedge shaped color lithographed can.

History of Maple Syrup Cans – Early Examples

Most maple syrup today is packaged into clear glass bottles or plastic jugs, but back in the day when the maple industry was shifting from making mostly maple sugar to maple syrup and maple syrup was being promoted as a condiment to pour over foods, metal cans were the standard method of packaging for direct sale to a consumer.

The manufacture and use of metal cans for preserving and transporting foods and liquids dates back to the early part of the 1800s, but it wasn’t until after the American Civil War that production of metal food canisters became efficient and affordable enough for most food industries to begin to package their products into smaller sizes more convenient for purchase for home consumption. In addition maple sugar was being underpriced by the more popular refined white cane sugar, leading the maple industry to refocus its attention and production on maple syrup as different and unique from table sugar. The industry shift from maple sugar to maple syrup was fairly gradual, but was well on it is way in the 1870s and 1880s.

Advertisement from the 1870s do tell us that merchants were selling maple syrup readily packaged in one gallon and half gallon cans. This ad from the Manchester Journal in 1873 even advertised for “hermetically sealed cans” of maple syrup. We don’t know what these cans looked like, but we can be sure that they were hand made by a tinware maker who rolled or folded the sheet metal into shape and hand soldered all the seams. Suffice to say, many of the hand made cans of the late 1800s are rather crude in form and neatness. Most larger communities had can-makers at this time and it was a slow and laborious process which led many to to try their hands at developing automated can making equipment.

Into the later 1880s, maple syrup – like many liquids bought in larger volumes, such as cooking oil, motor oil, kerosine, paint, turpentine, and gasoline – were settling on packaging their products into tall rectangular metal cans with top handles and a small opening for pouring.

In most cases manufacturers or packers of products, especially those that were shipping their items to non-local markets, pasted a paper label onto one or more  of the flat faces of these rectangular cans. Unfortunately, it is very rare for such labels to survive over a hundred years later and we don’t have many clearly dated examples of maple syrup labels from that time. The  half-gallon tin to the left is a good example of a hand soldered can with a wire handle and a multi-color paper label for Maple Leaf Brand maple syrup from a packer or grocer in Cummington, Massachusetts possibly named Geo. L. Rowell. Unfortunately, I have not found any information about this brand or packer, so it is difficult to put age the can with any certainty, outside of probably being from the 1880s or 1890s.

One very precisely dated can that is labeled pure maple syrup is a Towle & McCormick Log Cabin Pure Maple Syrup can from 1888 or 1889. Towle & McCormick was an early partnership between P.J. Towle and J.A. McCormick that only lasted from early 1888 to April 1889. From that narrow window, we can very tightly date this Log Cabin syrup can. Whether, the very earliest of the Log Cabin syrup sold was actually pure maple syrup remains to be seen. It may have been, but it was probably a blend of maple syrup and corn syrup or cane sugar even then. What is notable about this small can, that was probably a half gallon or quart size, is the heavy gauge wire handle, the upright, rectangular shape, the round pour spout, the soldered seams, and the multi-colored label. I won’t say this was the earliest maple syrup can of this kind for sale to the consumer, but it was among the earliest.

As much as the maple industry loves to hate the Towle Log Cabin syrup company for its history of creatively pushing the limits of implying their syrup had more pure maple syrup in it than it actually had and for out marketing and out selling pure maple syrup, Log Cabin did still buy and sell an incredible amount of maple syrup and in doing so, led the way in packaging and advertising. One of the next best dated examples of the rectangular one gallon syrup can again comes from Log Cabin, this time dating to at least 1893. By this time the Log Cabin company was starting to settle into a style with their colors and logos that would continue for many decades beyond.

The advertisement above from the Seattle Post Intelligencer in November 1893, while not super clear, shows that it was solely the Towle’s Company at this point and the label featured an image of a wood plank framed winter scene of a log cabin with sap pails on the trees in the sugarbush and a man carrying sap to a boiling kettle of maple sap being tending by a women. The can itself has a handle made from a strap of metal rather than a heavy wire like the earlier can.

The photo to the left show a very similar Log Cabin can from roughly the same time ca. 1895, but with a slightly different label. Again this can is hand soldered with a a strap handle. The reason for noting the strap handle is that it is easy to think that the strap handle is a more modern feature of these style cans. The wire handle has an older feel and appearance than the strap handle and it probably did appear earlier.  The strap handle replaced the more flimsy wire handle and has been used much longer as a carrying feature, but it is important to try and find well dated examples like these that show how early strap handles were in use.

In the 1890s, can making became a quicker process making use of both hand finishing with soldering work and machine processing with the cutting, stamping and molding of forms.

1897 Sears Catalog section for maple syrup listing different sizes and prices and illustrating an oblong square or rectangular can with paper label and strap handle.

The Sears catalog of 1897 included an image of a rectangular can of maple syrup with a paper label and what looks like a strap handle. Syrup could be bought by the gallon in bulk or in five gallon cans and one, one-half, and quart sized tins.

1906 advertisement for L. & J.A. Stewart’s square cans for maple syrup producers.

In 1901 there was a major change in the canning manufacturing world in the United States with the formation of the American Can Company. At that time American Can Co. began to buy up many of the larger can making companies and became the main supplier of mass produced cans to the larger food and packaging markets. The maple syrup industry was a bit more of a niche market and, at least in the beginning of the history of American Can Co., the unique rectangular shapes and sizes of syrup cans  were not a target of their consolidation. As a result, local can makers, like L. & J.A. Stewart of Rutland, Vermont, still produced and marketed rectangular or square cans for the maple industry.

Around this time (early 1900s) we start to see rectangular cans with molded square panels on each face, such as with the example to the right from a 1906 Vermont Farm Machine Company catalog.  Companies selling supplies to maple sugar and maple syrup makers started to offer these kinds of unlabeled syrup cans for individual producers, rather than forcing syrup makers to buy cans from the can manufacturers.

The shapes and sizes varied between manufacturers and volumes for different cans. Some were tall and rectangular in cross section, especially the one gallon cans, while others were tall but square in cross section.  Still others were short cubes as illustrated in the image above from a French language Dominion and Grimm catalog from 1908.

As with the appearance of molded or embossed panels on the side of cans in the early 1900s, this period also saw the beginning of embossed text on cans, most commonly with the words “MAPLE SYRUP” on one face for cans sold to be  filled by individuals producers.

Example of soldered seam can with an wire handle and embossed with MAPLE SYRUP on one face.
Example of soldered seam can with strap handle and embossed with MAPLE SYRUP on one face.

In the first decade of the 1900s, can making became increasingly automated and the technology progressed such that by the 19-teens all cans were made using a locking, folded double seams to connect the side panels to the tops and bottoms of the can, providing a safe and leak-proof seal, eliminating the need for the sometimes sloppy and inconsistent quality of hand soldering.

Embossed unlabeled can with associated cardboard shipping box from 1930s Leader Evaporator Company catalog.

Although there were improvements in the kinds and qualities of sheet metals, for the next three decades there was little significant change in can making technology and appearance for metal cans used in packing maple syrup. Square or rectangular unpainted cans continued to be sold with bare metal exteriors to which personalized paper labels with names or brands, grades, and place of origin were glued on by the individual maple producer or packer.

In the 19-teens technology was also perfected to permanently apply color ink to sheet metal. As will be discussed in a following blog post, the Log Cabin syrup company would begin to use this technology by the 1920s, but it would take another couple of decades to take hold among maple syrup producers.

Nineteenth Century Native American Sugaring Photographs

By Matthew M. Thomas

The role of Native Americans is a popular topic to those interested in the broader history of maple sugaring. Since one of the themes of this website is examining and sharing new evidence and studies of maple history, looking at early lines of Native American maple sugaring is always on my radar, in particular, accurate images and representations from the sugarbush.

Seth Eastman 1853 watercolor titled “Indian Sugar Camp”

While there are a number of engravings  from the mid-19th century showing what the artist imagined or was told a Native American sugarbush looked like, these images were not created from real-life experiences or in the field and are often woefully inaccurate. Artist Seth Eastman brought real-world experience to his water color paintings of Native American activities in Minnesota and created a much more realistic scene with a 1853 image of what are probably Dakota people at a sugarbush near Fort Snelling, Minnesota. Unfortunately, we do not know if this image was painted “en plein air” on site, in the moment, or was a facsimile of what Eastman saw and remembered after visiting a sugarbush.

In most cases, the best way to preserve an image of Native American sugaring was through photography. Interestingly, photographs taken in Native American sugarbushes in the 19th century are surprisingly rare. Estimated dates, that are probably decades off, sometimes get assigned to an old looking image that lacks a verifiable date. Because the Western Great Lakes are the area where Native American maple sugaring was most actively being pursued during the time when photographers began to capture Native Americans at work, the best and earliest examples of sugarbush photos come from Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

After examining hundreds of photos, the earliest reliably dated photograph of a Native American maple sugaring scene I have come across is an image from Crawford County, Michigan that was published in the First Report of the Directors of the State Forestry Commission of Michigan for the Years 1887 and 1888, published in 1888.

Scene of Crawford County Native American sugaring camp from 1888 Michigan State Forestry Commission report.

The caption in the report reads “Indians making sugar in Crawford County. Three young bear are playing in the foreground.”  and lacks any attribution to a photographer or studio.  The photo appears as a plate between pages 16 and 17 and is not directly connected to any article or text in the Forestry Commission report. We do not known when the Forestry Commission report photo was taken, only that it was published in 1888.

In this image we see three girls, one middle-aged woman standing in front of a rough plank lodge, and one older woman sitting nearby. A pile of folded birch bark sap collection pails is visible to the left of the image along with a large iron boiling kettle suspended on a pole over a fire. In the front center of the image a tapped maple tree is evidence, with a diagonal hatchet cut above a wooden slat tap protruding from the bark and a folded birch bark sap container slightly askew below it. Two of the females stand next to wooden barrels possibly used for the storage of maple sap. A stack of cut poles, possibly for firewood, is in the foreground of the right side of the image. Patches of snow in the woods in the background attest to the spring- time nature of the photo.

Framed photo of Shoppenagon sugaring camp that hangs in the International Maple Museum Centre in Croghan, NY.

Further investigations have discovered that another photograph of this same camp and sugarbush hangs on the wall in a hallway of the International Maple Museum and Centre in Croghan, New York. Fortunately this image has a great deal more information to share about the subject matter and the source of the photo.

Close up view of the Shoppenagon sugar camp photo from International Maple Museum Centre in Croghan, NY.

Donated to the Maple Museum by Michigan State Professor of Forestry Putnam Robbins in 1983, the caption on the label of this image reads:

Like the image described from the 1888 Forestry report, this photo shows the same wood lodge and forest, but from a slightly different angle. This image includes two girls, the daughters Nancy and Mary, one middle age women, Shoppenagon’s wife Irene stirring an iron kettle, and an older women, his mother. Unlike the first image, David Shoppenagon appears seated in the left of the image working on a pole with with a draw knife.

It is an interesting challenge to see what different items, like the kettle, and snow shoes, and wood barrels, that one can recognize in both photos.

David Shoppenagon was a well known Native American figure in the lower peninsula of Michigan in the latter part of the 19th century. Of Ojibwe descent, Shoppenagon was born in the Saginaw Valley in 1809 or 1818 and lived a very long life passing away in 1911. Often referred to as Chief Shoppenagon by the white community, Shoppenagon supposedly never referred to himself as such nor was he known to be a representative of any particular Ojibwe community in Michigan.

Undated studio photo of David Shoppenagon and presumably his wife Irene and one of his daughters. https://michpics.wordpress.com/2007/11/01/grayling-legend-david-shoppenagon/

A historical marker for Shoppogen in Grayling, Michigan, in Crawford County, not far from Frederic Township notes that he settled in the Grayling Michigan area in the 1870s where he trapped, hunted, and served as a well-respected and knowledgeable sportsmen’s guide on the Ausable River and across the lower Peninsula of Michigan.

In later years Shoppenagon appears to have embraced and monetized his local persona even going so far as lending his name and image in full Indian regalia to a local timber company and mill, receiving compensation for his work in promoting their wood products.

The caption attributes the photograph to a glass plate negative originally taken in the late 1860s by Dr. W. Beal, Head of the Botany Department, Michigan Agricultural College. Dr. William J. Beal was one of the earliest botanists at Michigan State University and was the founder of what is now named the Beal Botanical Gardens at MSU, the oldest of its kind in the United States.

I believe the date on the caption stating the image was taken in the late 1860s is incorrect since Beal was away from Michigan at Harvard University for graduate school in the 1860s and didn’t begin working as a professor at Michigan State until 1871. Moreover, Shoppenagon and his family didn’t move from the Saginaw Bay area to Crawford County until 1876.

It is possible, maybe even probable, that the photos of the Shoppenagon sugar camp were taken in the late 1870s or early 1880s, but for now, the oldest we can confidently say those images are is 1888.

Another early photograph of a Native American maple sugar camp was taken by John Munro Longyear, a well-known land surveyor that worked in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan in the later half of the 19th century. On one visit to the Lac Vieux Desert Ojibwe community he snapped a photograph of the contents of a maple sugaring cache and later preserved the photograph in an album that was dated October 26, 1888.

Photo of maple sugaring cache taken by John M. Longyear and Lac Vieux Desert Ojibwe community. John M. Longyear Library, Marquette, MI.

The Longyear image is an excellent snapshot of the items that were in use and stored from season to season at a Great Lakes Ojibwe sugarbush. One can recognize many iron kettles and pots, snow shoes, birch bark sap pails, reed mats, sheets of rolled-up and reinforced birch bark, and heavier duty sewn birch bark containers.

There are other images in collections and museums that may very well predate the images described here, but a careful investigation and documentation of their source and dating is needed before we should accept any estimate or approximation of the their antiquity. If anyone has a well dated photo of a native American maple sugaring scene as old or older than the images discussed here, please let me know. I would be very happy to share that information on this site.

References

Robert M. Hendershot, “The Legacy of an Ojibwe ‘Lumber Chief’ ” Michigan Historical Review  vol. 29 no. 2 (fall 2003) 40-68.

The History of Paraformaldehyde Use in the Maple Syrup Industry

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.

[3] Lynn Reynolds, “Editorial,” Maple Syrup Digest 1A, no. 1 (1989): 16-17.

[4] A.L. Shigo and F.M. Laing “Some Effects of Paraformaldehyde on Wood Surrounding Tapholes in Sugar Maple Trees,” U.S. Forest Service Research 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 Dean of Vermont Maple Syrup – John Rickaby

There are many well known names in the early 20th century history of maple syrup, most often heading manufacturing and packing companies emblazoned with their names such as George C. Cary, George H. Soule, G. H. Grimm, Leader, and True and Blanchard to name a few.  A less well-known, but influential man with a long history in the industry, was John D. Rickaby.

Rickaby spent 46 years, most of his whole adult life, working with maple syrup as a buyer, packer, plant manager, and company owner in Vermont and Massachusetts. Having worked with some of the largest maple syrup packing firms in the country, Rickaby became well-known throughout the maple industry as an experienced and knowledgeable businessman.  So much so, that by the end of his career, the Burlington Free Press referred to him in 1946 as the Dean of the Vermont maple syrup and maple sugar industry.

Born in 1873 in Lyster, Quebec , Rickaby’s family emigrated to St. Johnsbury, Vermont in 1877. Growing up in St. Johnsbury, Caledonia County was home to Rickaby and throughout his career, he was drawn back to the area. Rickaby began his long career as a businessman at a young age when he went to work helping his father with insurance and real estate sales as a teenager. At age 16, Rickaby lost a leg in a sailing accident and left high school after his second year, possibly in connection to the leg injury. Not surprisingly, this injury kept Rickaby out of World War I. At some point as a young man, Rickaby learned how to take notes in shorthand and became a skilled stenographer. He even offered classes as a private shorthand instructor.

Photo of John Rickaby from 1939 Burlington Free Press story.

In the late 1890s and very early 1900s, Rickaby travelled back and forth between St. Johnsbury; Hartford, Connecticut; and Chelsea, Massachusetts working with a variety of different insurance companies. It was in 1902 that his connection to the maple industry began when he settled into a position as stenographer and bookkeeper to George C. Cary in St. Johnsbury. The Cary Company was quickly growing in size and importance as a buyer and packer of maple sugar and maple syrup. In 1904, the Cary Company formally incorporated to become the George C. Cary Maple Sugar Company with John Rickaby listed as clerk. From the very early years of the Cary Company incorporation, Rickaby was a minor stockholder, later becoming a member of the board of directors and eventually elected company vice-president in 1909.

Rickaby was a close confidant of George Cary and while working as the company bookkeeper also served as the real estate broker for many of Cary’s purchases and sales of farms and maple woods in the North Danville area. Rickaby and his wife even stayed on Cary’s Lookout Farm (which Rickaby helped Cary purchase) a few miles from St. Johnsbury one summer before buying two acres of the farm from Cary and building his own summer cottage.

Rickaby’s eight years with the Cary Company paid off, when in 1910 he was selected to be the manager of a new bottling and packing plant to be opened by Towle’s Maple Products Company in St. Johnsbury. The Towle’s Company out of St. Paul, Minnesota was the manufacturer of Log Cabin Syrup, one of the largest buyers and bottlers of pure and blended maple syrup in the world. Leading the expansion and entry of the midwestern company into Vermont and the heart of the maple syrup producing world was a significant recognition of Rickaby’s connections to the Vermont industry and his business acumen.

The arrival of Towle’s Maple Products Company in St. Johnsbury was facilitated by the Cary Company selling their plant on Bay Street and moving to a new location in the old St. Johnsbury Grocery building a block away. When operated by the Cary Company, the primary focus of operations was to receive mostly maple sugar and some maple syrup and reconstitute it into large blocks of maple sugar for sale and shipment to tobacco companies for curing and flavoring tobacco. As a blending and bottling facility for Log Cabin syrups, a few improvements were needed. Under Rickaby’s direction, Towle’s quickly upgraded the facilities, adding steam jacketed kettles, storage tanks, and many feet of piping for filling bottles and the signature log cabin shaped metal cans.

In spite of the apparent success of the St. Johnsbury operations, following the death of company founder, Patrick J.Towle in 1912, the new leadership of the Towle’s company announced in December 1914 they had decided to close the St. Johnsbury plant the following year. Recognizing he was soon to be out of work, Rickaby purchased a share of the New England Maple Syrup Company and took on a new role as the company’s plant manager in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The New England Maple Syrup Company was described by one newspaper in 1915 as the largest maple syrup concern in the country. It was certainly one of the biggest, selling blended and pure maple syrup under the labels of Uncle John’s Cane and Maple Syrup, Golden Tree Syrup, Rock Maple 100% Vermont Maple Sap Syrup, and Gold Leaf Brand Maple Flavored Corn Syrup. The company also sold individually wrapped maple candies called maple kisses.

Under Rickaby’s leadership, the New England Maple Syrup Company grew, spreading the Uncle John’s label and their syrups all across the United States. However, as befalls many blended syrups, the implication from their packaging and advertising that their products were all pure maple syrup occasionally caught up with them and they were found guilty of adulteration or false labeling on a number of occasions.

Processing and blending sugar and maple syrup on a large scale meant the company usually purchased its ingredients in very large quantities. However, in 1921 this strategy cost them when the price of granulated cane sugar dropped enormously and the New England Maple Syrup Company found themselves sitting on many tons of sugar they already paid for. In the end the price drop was more than they could absorb and the company was forced into bankruptcy by its creditors.

Following bankruptcy proceedings, an auction of their equipment and facilities, and a reorganization, John Rickaby and C.M. Tice purchased the company as the sole owners, relocating to nearby Chelsea, Massachusetts. Rickaby left the reformed company not long after and in 1923 went to work for the Washburn- Crosby Milling Company of Minneapolis as a superintendent for the construction of a cereal production plant in Chicago. Rickaby stayed with Washburn-Crosby a few more years working out of Hartford, Connecticut.

In 1929 George C. Cary persuaded Rickaby to return to St. Johnsbury and the maple business when the Cary Company purchased Maple Grove Candies. Rickaby was selected as the initial Maple Grove Candies company treasurer and manager and oversaw the construction of a new two-story brick building for Maple Grove Candies located in front of the large Cary Company plant on Portland Street in St. Johnsbury.

 

1931 grand opening of new Maple Grove Candies building on Portland Street in St. Johnsbury.

With the completion of the new Maple Grove Candies building, Rickaby opted to take on his own maple syrup venture and, in partnership with W.W. Parsons and his brother-in-law Arthur R. Menut, formed Vermont Maple Orchards, Inc. to manufacture and sell a blended maple and cane syrup. Initially located in a former maple syrup processing building in Essex Junction, Vermont, in the summer of 1930 the company moved to the former Vermont Milk Chocolate Company building on Park Street in Burlington in 1932. Although he was no longer employed by the Cary Company, Rickaby was still a stockholder for the Cary Company and retained a strong tie to the Cary family. In fact, following the bankruptcy and death of George Cary in 1931, John Rickaby asked George’s son, Clinton Cary, then vice-president of the Cary Company to come and work with him in his new company in Essex Junction.  Clinton Cary took him up on that offer and worked for Rickaby for a few years before returning to the Cary Company in St. Johnsbury.

Photo from 1932 with John Rickaby on the right unloading barrels of syrup from Vermont for a maple festival in Massachusetts.

Rickaby stayed at the helm of the Vermont Maple Orchards, Inc. as president-treasurer until 1941 when he sold his interests due to deteriorating health. He then returned to St. Johnsbury and started a new maple sugar candy company called “Maple Bush” which was in operation for three years before Rickaby took a position in St. Albans with the George H. Soule Company’s Fairfield Farms Maple Company. The following year Fairfield Farms shut down its candy making operation and Rickaby returned to St. Johnsbury at which time he retired from active work with the maple syrup industry.

It is perhaps fitting that Rickaby was a product of St. Johnsbury, since it was the Maple Capital of the World at that time. It was common to see men like Rickaby, who had close associations with the Cary Company and Cary family, carry their knowledge and connections beyond the walls of the Cary Company, influencing the maple industry in the years to come.

Following five years of battling Parkinson’s disease, Rickaby died in St. Johnsbury in 1951 at the age of 78. John Rickaby and his wife Charlotte J. Menut Rickaby had no children.

Recent Publications in Maple Syrup History

I want to share two relatively recent scholarly publications on maple syrup history topics that might interest readers of this website. One is a report of archaeological investigations in northern Michigan and the other looks at the formation and role of cooperative organizations in the modernization of the Quebec maple industry.

First up is an article published in 2018 in the journal Historical Archaeology titled “Sucreries and Ziizbaakdokaanan: Racialization, Indigenous Creolization, and the Archaeology of Maple-Sugar Camps in Northern Michigan.”  Written by John G. Franzen, Terrance J. Martin, and Eric C. Drake, the article presents the results of archaeological survey and excavations at four sites believed to have been the location of maple sugaring camps dating from the late 1700s to the late 1800s. In addition to presenting the results of their investigations, the rest of the article focuses on understanding what the archaeological remains tell us about sugaring in the past within the context of maple producers that were navigating and negotiating their way through two or more social, ethnic, and cultural communities, namely Euro-American and indigenous Anishinabe (Chippewa/Ojibwe).

Next up is a historical study by Dr. Brigit Ramsingh looking at the evolution of early twentieth century marketing with the maple syrup industry in Quebec that was presented at the  Dublin Gastronomy Symposium in 2018. Titled Liquid Gold: Tapping into the Power Dynamics of Maple Syrup Supply Chains, the article considers the early development, role, and relative influence of cooperative marketing and sales in bringing the Quebec maple sugar and syrup industry into the position of dominance it enjoys today.

Ramsingh is a historian and Senior Lecturer in Food Safety Management at the Central University of Lancashire in the UK who is the process of expanding the research presented in this article for an even wider look at the influence of co-ops across the maple syrup region in both Canada and the United States.