# Small Machinery for Small Homesteads



## cowboyhermit

I happen to have a "full size" farm, but within that and somewhat independent is my "Homestead" where I use no chemicals, very little fuel or bought inputs, and do much of the work by hand.

We just can't justify growing a huge variety of crops in our current situation on the farm but there are a lot of grains, legumes, and oilseeds I would love to grow more often. Problem is, anything under an acre just isn't doable with large machinery, doubt I could even get the combine set and a few bushels would just be lost in the hopper.

What I have been thinking about for years is a "plot harvester". I used to work at a facility that had these and they seemed AWESOME. Not geared to efficiency in terms of speed obviously (they are tiny compared to a combine) but well made for years of use and incredibly efficient at separating and not losing grain. Seems perfect for a modern homestead or a shtf one.

However, I have never owned, maintained, or seen one for sale. Granted I have way too many projects on the go vract: but maybe some one here has info to share, anything would be appreciated. Here are some pics of what I am talking about.


----------



## cowboyhermit

By the way, I imagine everyone on here has heard of the open source ecology project, anyone involved? I still am hoping they will follow through, but you never know with this kind of stuff. They were planning a micro-combine. I like the modular, easily repairable and buildable nature. Nothing worse than having a beautifully over-engineered machine with one stupid part that is "impossible" to make
http://vimeo.com/49216792
http://vimeo.com/48464146


----------



## mosquitomountainman

Great ideas. I wonder if the cost/benefit ratio is reasonable. I'll bet the only places that can afford this type of machinery is agricultural test facilities that do small plots for testing purposes. Still, if I had the money ...

Too bad someone doesn't bring back some of the old pull-type combines. They were small enough to use in tight places and being pulled and powered by a tractor would be cheaper to build and maintain.

Steve


----------



## cowboyhermit

mosquitomountainman, that's kind of what I am wondering as well, I imagine they are not cheap but depending on how well they last they might be worth it. I know in our area many research stations have been closed that had them, but never found out where they went. It seems like experimental plots all over the world use them, maybe they are well funded enough to replace them before they are used up?
Pull type units are never as maneuverable or quite as efficient but for something like this they would save a lot of expense for sure. The size thing is a problem though, have to go back a long ways in our area at least, to get something small enough to be practical.
That's also one of the interesting parts of the o.s.e. project imo, they are trying out modular power systems that can be added or removed easily. I actually have been doing the same thing in a less systematic way with both 12VDC and gas powered hydraulic power packs and it has worked well to the extent I have experimented. I like it not just because you can utilize one motor on multiple machines but also because it is much easier to have a backup because things ALWAYS break and being able to swap out the unit for a back-up quickly is a stress reliever Then you can always tinker with whatever broke THIS time, when things are not panicked:gaah:


----------



## Marcus

http://www.ferrari-tractors.com/PDF Articles/Small Pull type Combine again available 3 pictures.pdf


----------



## cowboyhermit

Thanks Marcus, anyone have experience with one of those? $15000 plus $3000 shipping doesn't seem cheap for a 5-6ft refurbished pulltype but if they work well and last:dunno:Of course I am up in Canada so it would be more difficult.
One of the things that bugs me with the small equipment is the price, I can pick up something like a John Deere 6600 (Decent size a few decades back) for like $5000 in good shape, that's with over 100hp motor and the works, for a pulltype of the same size or age it is less. To spend 3 times more for a tiny thing like this is hard to get your head around.


----------



## weedygarden

*farm equipment for quads*

I recently saw a link for farm machinery that is used with quads, also known as all terrain vehicles, also known as 4 wheelers. I have been searching for it since I saw this post, but will have to continue to search. I saw it as a link on a blog or prep site. I looked where I thought it was, I was wrong. Not there.

Quads are used by everyone I know who has a farm. They are light weight and are work horses. They save on gas.

The link I saw showed a fairly decked out quad with tractor like tires, and chisel plows, plows, planters, etc. I don't think that any of these pieces of equipment was more than $1000.00, but more like $600.

Having grown up in western South Dakota, there is a John Deere dealership which has several locations in the state. You can easily pay $100,000 for a tractor and $1000's for any equipment. The John Deere dealership folks were definitely the wealthiest people in town.

I looked at the equipment, some of it that I have operated in my life, and wondered what you could maximally maintain in terms of fields. How much wheat could you plant and harvest with this? How much corn, lentils, potatoes, etc?

I wondered if 40 acres could be developed into a sustainable homestead with one or two ATVs, stored fuel, and $5,000 worth of equipment?

These links are still not the original one I saw, but, these are some examples.

http://www.abby-usa.com/atv_implements_cultipacker.php

http://www.gearup2go.com/atv/atv-accessories/agriculture-farming.html

http://www.amazing-atv-machinery.com/splash-tilling-products.html


----------



## cowboyhermit

I know what you mean weedygarden, I have struggled on occasion to find things on the "once you put it on there it never goes away" internet.

I have limited experience with using ATV's to actually do field work but I know it is fairly popular. Hunters planting treats for deer in the woods use them around here But we have always had a range of tractors so never really bothered. I agree though, it is a rare farm indeed that doesn't have an ATV these days.
All that ATV stuff looks great but there seems to be very little if any harvesting equipment, kinda weird in a way.

It shouldn't be hard to figure out how many acres are manageable.
A strip of land 8 feet wide by 1 mile is 1 acre 
So for instance if you had a 2 foot wide implement and could drive say 4 miles/hour you would cover 1 acre/hour.
4miles/hour is moderately slow for a tractor, 10 is very fast, what speed would an ATV work at?:dunno:


----------



## bacpacker

I like the idea of working an ATV. However, I think some area may be much more suitable than others. I know around here when the clay dries out in the summer, it is so hard small tractors have a hard time plowing very deep. 

I planted some wheat last year to try and learn what I was doing. I would have loved to have had a mini harvester. I did mine with a Scythe. Now that was some work!


----------



## Marcus

Apparently there are still some old pull behind combines in use by some of the organic folks. Here's a good site: http://faracresfarm.com/jbvb/faf/ac_66.html


----------



## cowboyhermit

We have plenty of scythes, some my great grandpa used to harvest here over 100 years ago. They work great, still use them for thistles and stuff around the yard. Absolutely this can be done by hand but it is hard, slow, tedious work:surrender: Not just the cutting but the threshing and separating as well. 

One of the reasons I like the "plot harvester" idea is that I know they work on all kinds of crops because they use them on test plots and need to be precise. For me, we grow wheat, oats, and barley, on a regular basis with the big machinery, but the stuff like lentils, field peas, chickpeas, beans etc that we like to eat is very expensive to get seed. So I would like to buy some by the pound or even the sack and grow some even when it is not practical on a big scale.

ETA; Thanks Marcus, might be worth looking around for an old one (or two for parts) I don't see many around here that small other than at museums but you never know, like I thought they are going wayyy back to find ones that size.


----------



## Tirediron

Some of the old equipment (Antique) would be about the right size. Quadavator out of Manitoba built some small tillage equipment, we have a cultivator , but their implement package is designed to work off of the same frame with bolt on accessories or at least used to be. Alberta agriculture used to have some cut down plot working machines 20 or so years ago. 
A binder and threshing machine would probably be a cheaper route to harvesting grains, and you could store the sheaves inside and separate later after the main harvest is done. I have a herd of John deere 96 pull type combines just cause I can, I just ranch so they are just for parts, still they need about 100 horse so a bunch too big for your project.


----------



## Bobbb




----------



## cowboyhermit

A binder and thresher would certainly have some benefits (straw piles for cattle) and I have those (antiques) but they have some drawbacks for sure.
In our area they pretty much went from threshing machines to Massey super 92's (these were really popular here) then quickly upwards. I don't see any super 92's anywhere anymore and the crushers have be scavenging farms everywhere for threshing machines and stuff lately here We have a 410 in great shape still  just because we kept a few but they are still a bit big for this kind of thing, maybe not:dunno:

Thanks Bobbb, that mini "combine" makes me smile, looks like fun to drive
I guess the idea is to keep things simple but none of those little machines are really "combines" They seem to just harvest the material and have no separating function I guess you would still need some kind of thresher or do it by hand.


----------



## Bobbb

I really like the ideas that the Open Source Ecology folks are putting out.

In my travels I've met a lot of back to nature freaks, usually young people who want to homestead or farm but they have no cash. Some are near penniless. The problem with this Open Source Ecology approach is that you need the fabrication infrastructure.

If civilization collapsed then these plans would be great but what they really need to do is to start with technology even more basic. Essentially, how do you take two rocks and a log and make a welder which you then use to make a drill, which you then use to make a tractor. To make the tractor they designed people have to use metal working equipment and have a facility to build it in. If their interest is in having a tractor and not a metal fabricating business, then they've got to sink some cash into the metal fabricating equipment before they can build the tractor, the sawmill, and the other projects.

I wonder if it's cheaper to buy the metal fabricating equipment and build yourself a tractor than it is to buy a used tractor?


----------



## helicopter5472

We have plenty of scythes, some my great grandpa used to harvest here over 100 years ago. They work great, still use them for thistles and stuff around the yard. Absolutely this can be done by hand but it is hard, slow, tedious work Not just the cutting but the threshing and separating as well. 



If you have a field to cut you better be in good shape, I remember in my younger years doing about an acre at my grandpa's place, better have a couple extra energy bars and a few gallons of water close by. Gloves are good too as blisters don't take to long to show up. I'm glad I was born in a more modern era. With all today's machines gone we are in for a treat. If your older like me, stock up the grains or have some good whiskey to trade for.


----------



## Tirediron

Bobbb said:


> I really like the ideas that the Open Source Ecology folks are putting out.
> 
> In my travels I've met a lot of back to nature freaks, usually young people who want to homestead or farm but they have no cash. Some are near penniless. The problem with this Open Source Ecology approach is that you need the fabrication infrastructure.
> 
> If civilization collapsed then these plans would be great but what they really need to do is to start with technology even more basic. Essentially, how do you take two rocks and a log and make a welder which you then use to make a drill, which you then use to make a tractor. To make the tractor they designed people have to use metal working equipment and have a facility to build it in. If their interest is in having a tractor and not a metal fabricating business, then they've got to sink some cash into the metal fabricating equipment before they can build the tractor, the sawmill, and the other projects.
> 
> I wonder if it's cheaper to buy the metal fabricating equipment and build yourself a tractor than it is to buy a used tractor?


NO, I have a very well equiped shop and decades of experience and it is never cheaper to build a complex machine than to buy used. that being said it is often far cheaper to buy a machine in need of repair and fix it using more common parts. We bought a Clark/ Michigan wheel loader that had been home converted to 350 chevy power, it worked for a while. It helped dig its own loading ramp, we hand winched it on the trailer with boomers, because of the amount of slop in the steering, it ran long enough to get it unloaded at home, then the engine and the adapted drive system failed. I think that the original engine swapper got quit a few hours out of it before it decided to have a hibernation in front of our shop. MY son & I redesigned the motor adaption , using GM truck parts and a SAE bellhousing adapter (I bought the from http://www.phxgrp.com/saeadapters.htm , cheaper than I could buy the aluminum to make it (including shipping) So for $500.00 in parts, a donor 350 from a salvage product and about 150 hour in the shop we have a pretty decent, 18000#, 2 cubic yard loader, there is no way that even in our shop with decades of experience and a crap load of tools and machinery we could have built much more than a laughable garden tractor for the price and effort. Sorry for the hijack CowboyHermit


----------



## Bobbb

Tirediron said:


> NO, I have a very well equiped shop and decades of experience and it is never cheaper to build a complex machine than to buy used. that being said it is often far cheaper to buy a machine in need of repair and fix it using more common parts.


What's a complex machine though? Does complexity in this context mean something that can't be replicated without expertise and expensive equipment or does it mean something that is expensive?

Even a used tractor has value embedded within it from both material costs and from labor costs. For people who are very capital poor, they're going to be depleting their capital when they pay for someone else's labor if they have the option of duplicating that labor.

With a used tractor, for instance, if you can buy it for close to scrap value, then you essentially get for free the labor that was used in fabrication of the tractor. You can't go much lower than scrap value. The other direction is up - how much more than scrap value and how much less than new retail are you paying?

It's been a few years since I last visited that Open Source Ecology project website, but I spent some time there this afternoon. Here's what they write about the tools needed to fabricate the tractor.

A basic workshop incudes these tools:

MIG Welder - 200 amps - $1000 used
Acetylene Torch - $500
Magnetic Drill - $385
15 Amp and 5 Amp grinders - $80
Abrasive 14" metal cutoff saw - $150​
and other hand tools such as C clamps, vise clamps, a vise, hammers, wrenches, allen wrenches, pipe wrenches, holding magnets, speed square, L angle, mesuring tape, soapstone marker, and others.

For about a $2,100 investment in the above tools - one has sufficient tooling to build the entire tractor, CEB press, Pulverizer, and Power Cube. The only part not covered is about 2-4 hours of lathe work to produce tractor wheel shaft couplers. Otherwise, all else is obtained by cutting, drilling, and welding of stock steel metal sections. Simplicity of design allows one to build serious equipment with minimal effort. Skill is required - but that skill can be picked up when one really wants to do the work.​
This is what I find intriguing about this concept. You can now bootstrap yourself higher up the tool hierarchy.

You can use the above tools to build yourself a tractor. Then those same tools, plus about $2,000 in new parts, and you build a torch table and then an Ironworker.






Then you build a brick maker and a saw mill (shown higher up in the thread).

So now you have a bulldozer/backhoe/tractor for farming. You use the bulldozer to clear land, the backhoe to dig. You use the tractor to haul logs to cut on your sawmill. You make bricks. You can build a barn or a house with zero lumber costs. You can make fencing for your property. You can build retaining walls with your bricks or use them for facing your house. Then you use the tractor to farm.

So, I do understand your point - if you buy the tools JUST to build yourself some gadget, then the cost of those tools has to be combined with the cost of manufacture. However, if the tools you bought can be used for other projects, then the amortization into the tractor fabrication gets lowered.

So let's say that some young couple manage to scrape together $100,000 and they want to homestead. They can't borrow because they're not going to be earning an income or not enough income to pay a mortgage regularly. This means that every dollar for them is going to be precious. Spending $30,000 on a good tractor is going to hurt them more than spending $6,000 building one for themselves with the aid of the $2,000 in metal equipment that they can also use for other purposes.

I'm not really arguing a point here, just thinking out loud because I find this bootstrapping concept very intriguing.


----------



## mosquitomountainman

Right after WW2 the Europeans were using surplus military jeeps to do their plowing. There were no tractors available after the war.

Garden tractors have been used for light plowing and have sickle bar mowers available (Bolens is one brand that comes to mind). In reality, a garden tractor is much better pulling a roto-tiller than a plow but it can be done.

Then there is always horses and oxen.


----------



## Tirediron

The problem is the idea that they need to spend $30 000 on a "good" tractor almost any old running "classic" will do what a small homestead needs, the open source idea might work but I can tell you from experience that a machine made with the tools that you listed will not do what a farmall H will do for long. the add ons that the open source comes up with might work for a little while. A magnetic drill is the most over rated tool known to man, a good old drill press would be a LOT better investment. I live the life style, by choice and make a lot of my living fixing equipment. the grinders are also way under priced, An 80 dollar 5 amp grinder might last at least a while, but a 15 amp is still $200 for one that can handle actual fabrication. While I agree with spending the money on tools, trying to build a long term functional machine from the open source ideas that I have seen is a huge stretch of the imagination. A skilled fabricator is worth 5 to 7 time what a newbie homesteader is when it come to building things, because of his or her experience and the ability to know what will work and stand up to punishment. so the duplication of labour concept only works if the homesteader has a week to commit to a project that would take a seasoned hand a day. I am not bashing the Do what you can for your self concept simply stating what empirical evidence shows. If we are going to continue this discussion, we should start a new thread, and we probably should because the concept of building things to do work for you is an excellent plan.


----------



## Bobbb

Tirediron said:


> A skilled fabricator is worth 5 to 7 time what a newbie homesteader is when it come to building things, because of his or her experience and the ability to know what will work and stand up to punishment. so the duplication of labour concept only works if the homesteader has a week to commit to a project that would take a seasoned hand a day.


What you've described is THE fundamental process of how we create wealth in an economy.

For people who are capital-poor and time-rich though the calculus changes. Rather than forking over $300 for something, they'd be further ahead spending 3 days working to do the same thing because they don't have the option of working and earning $300 in 3 days.



> rying to build a long term functional machine from the open source ideas that I have seen is a huge stretch of the imagination.


Same can be said about building a computer operating system (Linux versus Windows).

I was reading some more about what the next stages in store for that tractor project. They're already up to version 4. Next they're going to do a stress and load analysis to map out how the stresses distribute through the frame and make other improvements. The guy who thought up this movement has a Ph.D in physics. They've got engineers of different sorts volunteering to do different things. They've got machinists, computer programmers and other specialists volunteering their expertise.

I'm not as doubtful as you. I agree that the product you buy is going to be better because it has a lot of expertise, embedded knowledge and labor, lots of capital equipment to produce specialized parts and a huge production run to spread the costs of development that, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, can't be matched by DIY people. However, all things are not equal. Specialists are volunteering their time and expertise, and the design goals try to meet both functionality and fabrication simplicity, so different decisions are made that manufacturers don't even consider, but these different paths don't necessarily imply severely reduced quality or functionality. This tractor will never look as nice as a John Deere but does that matter? How much of the cost of a Deere goes towards making it look nice?

I'll be interested in seeing how much of a functionality versus cost trade-off there is as the prototypes keep getting more sophisticated.


----------



## cowboyhermit

Tirediron is certainly right that you will never get the efficiency in building a one off that you will get if you make a dozen. There are a lot of drawbacks to this kind of system but I think the potential benefits are substantial.
Because it is open source there will also be nothing to stop a local shop, or even someone who builds one, from making more (guaranteed the second one will take much less time).

Some of the big benefits I see are that it is designed to be made without extensive infrastructure (No cast for instance) cast parts are great and machinery makers love them because they can knock out many with little cost. However finding these parts can sometimes be tough and they do break/strip/crack at times. Mass produced machinery is well engineered for their assembly lines but not for making your own replacement parts (or using off the shelf parts for that matter)

Some machinery has broken that trend but it is the exception. We have an old 4wheel drive Steiger bearcat for instance. They were put together totally with off the shelf parts and plate steel, nothing was manufactured specifically for that tractor. Thing is they were/are amazing units, outlived the much more complex and engineered 4wheel drives of the time.


----------



## cnsper

The easiest solution is to eat corn bread. There is a reason they used to eat a lot of it.


----------



## Tirediron

*open source concept vs new factory built*

If one is to compare the open source tractor concept to a new factory machine including the pollution waste and the new factory machine having electronics imbedded in to the system the open source machine should be a better value. my comments about whether a financially pinched homesteader should start out by using the build your own concept was based on simple return for the dollar. how ever Open source appears to be looking at their design and are looking at staged options. As Cowboy hermit pointed out proprietary parts although cheaper to a manufacturer don't do much for the end user, except cost lots to fix down the road. Proprietary electronic systems are a huge part of the trapper at the dealer program.
I was really surprized at their approach to a thresher. In staying with a combine (combined thresher unit) I saw the modular approach being set aside for a complex design (IMO) I believe for a small holder a reaper/binder with a separate thresher would give a much more efficient solution, in both time and financial cost. The added benefit in a separate threshing unit allows for an expanded threshing season or for several small holder to share or barter the machine.


----------



## cowboyhermit

That's the thing with open source, the direction it goes is a result of who's involved. Personally I would go for a combine but your points on the benefits of separate units are 100% valid :dunno:
I guess there would be nothing stopping them from going both routes eventually.
I would also be much more inclined to use off the shelf parts that are cheap and widely available, whereas there goal is to be able to manufacture nearly the whole works from scratch, it is a tradeoff for sure. I love "standards" and find it amazing how I can grease a 1930's machine with the same zerk as a brand new one but sooo many parts on machines are custom made for no particular benefit other than the fact that John Deere has one style, Case has another. I am still messing around with John Deere to Pioneer hydraulic couplers to this day:gaah:
Just last year I had to replace some u-joints on a haybine, I thought no big deal just pop them out and grab new ones Instead of using run of the mill u-joints they used 3 different ones on one machine and had to be ordered (while the weather was beautiful of course) and they were double the price at least

But if a person is going to have to deal with custom made parts, at least it would be nice to have ones that are "easy" to make

Btw, this is a tangent but I have used Linux (and its derivatives) as an example of how open source "can" work if things go well, only to have people look at me like I'm crazy. What most people know (especially in North America) is that p.cs and macs are "computers" and they assume Linux is some fringe program. However almost all of the fastest supercomputers in the world use Linux, many web servers run Linux, millions of embedded devices, and 10's of millions run it on "personal computers"

I think there are some parallels here. Most people will just buy the off the shelf operating system and it works great, it costs money but it is worth it to have a computer. However those that want something more configurable, free, quite possibly more functional but less "ready out of the box" will use this open source alternative. However not being able to run a particular program (or watch netflix) can be a deal breaker for many, so I think those involved in a program like this should pay more attention to these problems.

Will the open source tractor have a standard pto, will it use standard 3 pt hitches, standard hydraulic couplers? Time will tell but in some ways it looks like they are coming up with ANOTHER system


----------



## mosquitomountainman

Okay, what's a haybine?


----------



## cowboyhermit

mosquitomountainman said:


> Okay, what's a haybine?


I guess maybe a mower conditioner might be a more common term.









Like a swather but with conditioner or crimper rollers and much sturdier knives for cutting fescue and the like.


----------



## Tirediron

Not quoting the whole thread to save space. John deere's silly coupler is a pain, when ever I rebuild a spool block, I use their pioneer kits. Open source Doesn't have any jade old agrarians like us on their build team, So they may not know what really pisses people in the field off, like proprietary anything, and as I read their plans the introduction of electronics in the control systems should derail the process of user build and repair. Having a combine might be a good plan where the growing season is longer, for me the ability to bind and stook sheaves would be a lot better, here it is pretty hard to just straight cut thresh due to the length of the season.


----------



## LincTex

I definitely have to weigh in here.

First, there are many ways to skin this cat, ranging from simple to complex. I believe that any crop less than an acre should be done with Human power, for the cost of making a machine to harvest one acre is just too much, both in cost to build - - and human labor to build.

I have also looked into this concept very heavily, and for an acre (or two) a Scythe works well to cut the crop, as well as - a weedeater/brush cutter (per this website: http://sustainableseedsystems.wsu.edu/nichemarket/smallscalethreshing.html ).

Personally, I would rig up a draper on the back of a 5, 6 or 7 foot sickle bar mower before I headed out to cut wheat down with a weedater. Think "half a swather". You could use hay sweeps to gather the cut crop and bring it to the thresher. (Google it)

Tired iron really has it right.... if you want to have consistent feed rates, level sieves, and less complexity, you need to bring the grain to a stationary thresher. I like the one made from a leaf shredder and the concept can be easily duplicated. Making it self-propelled would be tough. I plan to convert a leaf shredder into a mini threshing machine... it will just separate gran from straw and that's it. The grain-chaff mix will be winnowed, screened and sieved separately.

Used combines are insanely cheap if you look around. I know where I can get a Deere 55 that runs for $500. I was at an auction a few years back that had an older Gleaner (with a cab!) and a lot of new belts and bearings that went with it, and it sold for $600. It had a Sund tooth pick-up on the header.

I know where there is an Allis "60 All-Crop" but it is super rough. I wonder if I can get it for a song. Not far from it (20 miles) is an older (50's?) Gleaner (with no cab) in the back of a pasture, keeping company with a bunch of Oliver 77's and 88's.

Bobbb, I bought a running '49 Farmall C with mounted cultivators, and hydraulics that still WORK for $300. Also has a PTO and a belt pulley, but no 3 point hitch. I would never attempt to build a tractor of that caliber and expect to come anywhere near that price range. I have also bought two more C's (complete!) for parts (a '48 and a '50) for $200 and $250, respectively. I plan to combine the two tractors to make one good one, that is far and away better than many homemade ones.

I see good running Farmall H's all over the place for less than $800 every day. That is a great machine, and you can do a lot of farming with one.

Want to see a cool mini self-propelled combine? Search Massey-Harris 735. It uses a 1200cc air-cooled VW beetle engine for power!!


----------



## cowboyhermit

Tirediron, I was thinking more in terms of swathing/mowing, then using something like a plot harvester, the one they had at the facility I worked at had a "renn" style pickup as well. You make a good point though, in the past we very rarely straight combined in our area other than wheat.

Linctex, I know those plot combines were very efficient in terms of threshing, they got everything out because otherwise the results would be less valid. I am not sure just how efficient they are in other aspects.
Btw, our old 410 masseys had instructions in the manual for operating them as a stationary thresher

Old machinery can be great, certainly very economical in most cases. However I see possibilities for this stuff too. We have modified MANY old machines on our farm because the old machinery often wasn't perfect. Everything from swapping hydraulic couplers like mentioned, to replacing belt drives with hydraulic motors in particular circumstances. Parts can sometimes be an issue as well. OSE stuff has tremendous potential in less developed countries where machinery simply isn't available like it is here.


----------



## LincTex

Some more ideas:

http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/build-yourself/56736-building-small-scale-thresher.html

I LOVE this!
http://www.slideshare.net/seedtray/a-home-built-threshing-machine-for-smallholders

Pretty basic:
http://farmhack.net/tools/small-scale-thresher


----------



## LincTex

I am also always throwing around the idea of a tractor mounted combine.

Did you know the old Baldwins (before it was just Gleaner) used a tractor mounted combine to make a self-propelled combine?

I have a little Chang-Chai made (YTO brand) diesel Chinese tractor, *just like in the first picture*. YTO makes a combine that fits on it, with a 1.5-meter straight cut header. It's over $3000USD plus shipping though, so forget it!! I don't know what the Dafeng one costs, but I am sure it's similar.


----------



## cowboyhermit

Those tractor mounted are awesome but hilarious at the same time somehow.
I imagine the dust could get pretty crazy but you do what you gotta do.
Looks like they put like a 10foot pipe on the air cleaner in the first one


----------



## LincTex

cowboyhermit said:


> Those tractor mounted are awesome but hilarious at the same time somehow.


They would have to be a BEYotch to steer. Manual steering on these, yo. :brickwall:

Be fun to get off of in a hurry if you have a fire!!! 

Oh, and you better have earplugs... and LOTS of them!! The noise is ALL right behind your head!!

This looks a LOT like an old Fordson (not Chinese?) with a mounted unit, good side view.


----------



## ContinualHarvest

I went to a historic farm site over the weekend to camp. The curator (it's a museum of sorts) showed our group machinery that was powered by draft horses. Disking machine, threshers, drills, ploughs all driven by horses. It was very interesting. Gotta go back and get photos of the mechanisms.


----------



## LincTex

ContinualHarvest said:


> Gotta go back and get photos of the mechanisms.


Notice the drive lugs on the wheels... the machine is powered by the wheels rolling as the horse pulls it. Binders also operate the same way.
About 120 miles or so from me:

Antique IHC Sickle Bar Mower
http://killeen.craigslist.org/atq/3792061594.html


----------



## LincTex

A couple other points need to be made:

ATV's, Quads, 4 -wheelers, whatever - - - - were NEVER intended to operate "ground engaging" equipment and I'll bet their engineers are appalled that anyone would consider doing so.

Sure, you can dig a small garden with one if the soil is soft, but anything else is going to destroy your tires (expensive) cause it to overheat (unreliable) and create more stress in the drivetrain than they were ever meant to handle (undependable).

Go take a $4000+ ATV out in a field and start plowing with it, I bet you don't last an hour or two at the most.. I'll show up with a 60 year-old Farmall C and plow all day.

This Thing?
http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/LifeTrac

Is a disaster on multiple levels. Notice the upper operator cage members the "bulldozer" arms are attached to - this is one big parallelogram. No triangular bracing anywhere. These are ENGINEERS??????

The geometry of their loader arms, cylinder stroke sizing, front bucket attachment, etc. make this thing scream: "I am designed by unknowledgeable amateurs!" Why didn't they copy something already successfully produced? And, they had several generations to make it better 



Bobbb said:


> A basic workshop incudes these tools:
> 
> MIG Welder - 200 amps - $1000 used
> Acetylene Torch - $500
> Magnetic Drill - $385
> 15 Amp and 5 Amp grinders - $80
> Abrasive 14" metal cutoff saw - $150​


Must have been a good night of drinking the night before they made up that list of tools and, those prices. Who says mechanical engineers don't like to have fun?????


----------



## Tirediron

Linctex, I completely agree with your assessment of the Lifetrac, but I do like the modular concept of the power cube etc the "engineering" just plain sucks so far but maybe they will get it in time, if they don't wreck it with electronics.
Quadavator makes some interesting small implements, which are well constructed, they at least last time I tried to deal with them need to figure out a better priced shipping system.

http://www.quadivator.com/gallery.html

their trailer jack 12 cylinder works sort of, it is mounted upside down and I see that they haven't done much to remedy that in 16 or so years.

A lot of their UTV equipment might work really nice behind a ford 8n size tractor, our quadivator has spent time behind our JD AR with a set of bolt on extensions and lived quite well, other than when my sisterinlaw's husband bent the hitch turning too sharp, but then he has bent lots of hitches.

The main stupid that I see in all combines is the processing of the vast volume of straw, although my combine time is limited, I would try to just take enough straw to get most of the heads and then have another cutter bar to trim the straw and deal with it. this is a big part of the reason that I would go stationary for threshing, a feed table that handles the bundles (sheaves) could have a cutting head at the end to just top them and not need to process so much material, having not tried this there might be some reason that it wouldn't work. again I ranch not farm.


----------



## Tirediron

cowboyhermit said:


> Those tractor mounted are awesome but hilarious at the same time somehow.
> I imagine the dust could get pretty crazy but you do what you gotta do.
> Looks like they put like a 10foot pipe on the air cleaner in the first one


Why on earth would they bolt those to a tractor instead of making them pull type is beyond me, they stopped making them for fordsons in the US for a reason.


----------



## ContinualHarvest

LincTex said:


> Notice the drive lugs on the wheels... the machine is powered by the wheels rolling as the horse pulls it. Binders also operate the same way.
> About 120 miles or so from me:
> 
> Antique IHC Sickle Bar Mower
> http://killeen.craigslist.org/atq/3792061594.html


Thanks for the info. MAn, they really hd some know how.


----------



## cowboyhermit

I think you guys are being a bit hard on the Lifetrac. Most tractor loaders don't have any triangular bracing, usually they just bolt onto a straight frame member. That is a very bad configuration and yet it works because that is not the weakest link. On the Lifetrac they are already adding ballast on the rear, tipping being the limiting factor on lift (something like 12000lbs lift potential on the arms) so they could add bracing (and they may) but to what end, they are planning a more specialized loader at some point. This thing is capable of lifting a ton, most small tractors will struggle with that, if they can handle it at all. Spindles and steering arms are a very common point of failure even on 100hp tractors when carrying a ton.
Here is a typical loader, note it is bolted to a horizontal frame and essentially consists of a vertical member with bent arms hinged at the top, very similar but actually with less bracing than the open source version.









Here are some of the engineering details (btw I see they switched to the standard bobcat/skid steer quick attach plate, that is a good sign )
http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/LifeTrac_IV/Research_Development/Carrying_capacity#Case_1:_tractor_is_used_for_lifting_objects
http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/LifeTrac_IV_Loader_Lift_Capacity


----------



## Bobbb

cowboyhermit said:


> I think you guys are being a bit hard on the Lifetrac.


I'm glad that you wrote that because I want to like the LifeTrac but my experience with small tractors is very limited so I'm out of my depth when discussion gets into issues of usability and robustness.

I want to like the LifeTrac because I like the concept of power modules, I like the concept of self-build, I like the concept of simplicity, I like the concept of off-the-shelf parts. I just don't know whether all of the things I like also translate into a product with a cost/benefit factor which matches or exceeds a manufactured tractor. I wouldn't expect a home-built which costs a quarter of a factory-built to be as smooth as a factory built, but if it's 1/2 as smooth and functional, then it's punching above it's weight class considering it only costs 1/4 as much.


----------



## cowboyhermit

It is really hard to compare with real "tractors" at this point, especially because it is not built like a tractor, it actually is looking more like a skidsteer loader at this point. Which certainly has advantages in weight lifting on the loader but not sure how that will work out for field work at this point:dunno:
I wonder if articulated wouldn't have been a better path but it all depends.


----------



## Tirediron

I am glad that you are staying in this conversation Bobbb, with out old salvage in the picture the lifetrac would look a lot more feasible, Open source design is kind of like a forum discussion lots of ideas bounced around, and usually some sort of concensus reached. Maybe we are being hard on the lifetrac, but the design is barely out of concept stage, with very few actual test hours. the simple bolt together design is a 2 sided sword, simplicity on one side and a wear /weak point on the other. The power cube in it's self is an excellent idea, I don't like the 3600 rpm engine due to wear factors but that is easy to change. As a solution for an emerging economy where the isn't a good supply of "obsolete" equipment and there is a good supply of cheap labour the concept makes a lot more sense. For a homesteader in the US or Canada, I think at the present time an old machine, with a couple of same or similar parts donors would be a much better value. If some of the lifetrac add on and accessories were added to an old proven tractor design the outcome would be a lot better use of the dolars spent.


----------



## LincTex

Tirediron said:


> Why on earth would they bolt those to a tractor instead of making them pull type is beyond me, they stopped making them for fordsons in the US for a reason.


Purely for maneuverability in tight quarters. They don't have BIG fields like we do in the USA. I really like the concept of having the sickle and reel out front.


----------



## LincTex

Bobbb said:


> I just don't know whether all of the things I like also translate into a product with a cost/benefit factor which matches or exceeds a manufactured tractor.


Smooth not really being a judgement criteria (dependability, traction and power are, btw) you just CAN'T beat a lot of the deals out there... if you look.

I know a fella that told me the other day he bought a little yanmar 186 4WD diesel with a front end loader on it for $800 (oh boy, was I envious!) but said the engine was froze (due to water getting down the stack).
He filled the cylinders with PB Blaster and managed to work the crank back and forth and freed it up... and the dang thing now runs! He has to use starting fluid to get it to fire... I told him he definitely needs new piston rings at this point.

I would weigh out and list what functions you NEED, then look for machine that will fill those needs. I know for a fact you can find a tractor in your area for less than $1500 that is ready to use... and you can't build that jicky lifetrac for $1500..... You can't even buy the steel alone for that.

Now, if you are a hell of a scrounger, go back in time and look at all the homemade tractors people have made over the years,m starting with Model T ford and going up from there.

As far as the "power cube" concept.... that is basically what a small tractor IS. You have a PTO shaft on most, a belt pulley (sometimes) and hydraulics (often).... so you just drive the tractor to where the implement is stored, hook it up and go to where it is needed. You can make a mounted sawmill that uses the tractor to power it, you can make a well driller that uses tractor power, feed grinder, water pump, etc. etc. The "power cube" concept isn't unique, most people just have various powered equipment that runs from the tractor.

I don't like their cheap little aluminum 3600 RPM lawnmower engine either. They are also grossly overrated on actual power output. They are not meant to last many years. My '49 "C" is 64 years old and doesn't use a drop of oil and doesn't smoke.


----------



## Tirediron

*Junk yard / salvage machine*

If a person with some tools and time were to apply the self build concept to salvage components , such a pair of truck rear axles and an articulating frame (to avoid the need for steering knuckles or skid type steering) and a decent salvage motor / gearbox combo they would have a much more robust machine that could actually pull a plow or do other field work for extended periods. at the same time using parts that are readily available.


----------



## LincTex

Bobbb, buy a good used machine and use it to do work for you while you tinker with building your own in the barn/shed.

do a search for "homemade tractor" for ideas. Then go around and just start buying an old junk you can get your hands on. Hydraulic cylinders, hoses, gearboxes, engines, axles, pumps, tanks, etc are ALWAYS cheaper when sourced from old "stuff"!

http://www.farmcollector.com/tractors/theiman-tractor-homemade-tractors.aspx#axzz2Vv0Ryiww

http://www.smokstak.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43266

http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/build-yourself/155363-homemade-tractor-start.html

http://www.mytractorforum.com/showthread.php?t=143015

http://motomow.forumotion.com/t146-check-out-gary-barkyoumb-s-really-cool-home-made-tractor


----------



## Tirediron

*possible small sickle mower solution.*

A reciprocating hedge trimmer works very nicely in taller grass & weeds, and they might be a good solution for some one wanting to cut a small field of grain especially if you built a cradle to gather a bundle as it fell. An experienced scythe operator could probably do better, time wise but a new hand on a scythe just makes a mess. I think the hedge trimmer would make a good cutter bar for a small scale binder or combine


----------



## LincTex

Tirediron said:


> I think the hedge trimmer would make a good cutter bar for a small scale binder or combine


I worry about the durability. I have one and I doubt it was meant to last longer than 50 hours (and it's only 18 inches). I would love to find a junk 5 or 7 foot sickle mower for cheap.


----------



## Tirediron

You live in the wrong part of the continent for cheap sickle mowers, they a pretty plentiful up here, I agree that the hedge trimmer is a lot less robust than an agricultural sickle mower, but ours has a lot more than 50 hrs on it mostly trimming caraganhas. It would not take the place of a conventional sickle bar, but it sure beats a weed eater.

I think I found a pretty good micro thresher design
http://www.slideshare.net/seedtray/a-home-built-threshing-machine-for-smallholders

it could be scaled to what ever size you want. mean while I am still looking for a small threshing machine.


----------



## LincTex

Tirediron said:


> I think I found a pretty good micro thresher design
> .


Yeah, I added that link in post #31


----------



## Bobbb

LincTex said:


> I know for a fact you can find a tractor in your area for less than $1500 that is ready to use... and you can't build that jicky lifetrac for $1500..... You can't even buy the steel alone for that.


The further someone lives from an agricultural area the smaller the market for used tractors. I went through my local CraigsList and I'm finding a 1972 Massey Ferguson 165 for $5000.

There's a 1994 John Deere 970 going for $10,000.

Another John Deere, a 1944 D model going for $2,000.

There's probably a money-making opportunity here for guys to buy tractors low in areas of the country where there is a surplus and sell high in areas where there is a shortage.

So the question becomes, is it worth spending $5,000 for a 40 year old tractor or spending $8,000 for a brand new LifeTrac build or spending $25,000-$40,000 for a brand new Deere?


----------



## Bobbb

Dude built this for $3,000


----------



## cowboyhermit

At this point Bobbb, from an economical perspective, you probably would be better off finding an old tractor, even if you had to trailer it from another state.

I see a lot of potential in the Lifetrac but it is still potential at the moment. If you planned to do a lot of loader work it looks good but I haven't seen much in terms of pulling and such.
I can see some difficulties in their design in terms of pulling more conventional machinery, such as rear visibility and others. An articulated steering model might have been better there but only time will tell if this works out. 
When we first got our Hydra-swing haybine (499) everyone said it would have endless problems due to the hydraulic drive system, center pivot, dual knives, heck just how weird it was to drive but it turned out to be a great machine and influenced future machines a lot.


----------



## Tirediron

the machine you posted is exponentialy tougher and more useful than the life track, but I seriously doubt he could do it again for the same money, still it is a decent machine seriously over engined. 
I don't think he included the stuff he had sitting around in the price or the one time only deals he got

As too the 40 year old deere, it depends on the model, a 3010 which would be 50 ish years old in decent condition would be a far better value than the same amount put into a lifetrac, which is 1/2 the engine horse power, and probably only 1/3 the tractive power. it also really depends on what you are doing with the machine, 
I could see spending time and money on a tractor similar to the one you posted the youtube on, with either some cam timing modification or a different engine, A cummins BT4 for example you could have a good solid useful machine. the lifetrac needs to catch up to the needs and life cycle to be a worth while project, for now it is just a prototype.
Versitile built a "new concept" bidirectional tractor, the concept was sound ,but it was under built and not tested enough so the project failed after a number of years.


----------



## Bobbb

cowboyhermit said:


> At this point Bobbb, from an economical perspective, you probably would be better off finding an old tractor, even if you had to trailer it from another state.


There's a part of my psyche which really gets a kick out of building projects. When I was a younger man I help my friend build a motorcycle from the ground up. As a wee lad I was shown my friend's uncle's two hand built cars, - the man was a machinist by trade and it took him 20 years of working to build these two futuristic works of art.

What I'm not inclined to do is to spend all the time in building in order to capture a feeling of satisfaction and end up with a sub-prime creation. That just defeats the purpose. I have no objection to buying used, it's just that it kind of breaks my heart to do so if it's possible to actually build better.

While I've got everyone's attention, what's the deal with an articulated frame? What advantage does it present for small homestead use?


----------



## cowboyhermit

Traditional steering like automobiles and most tractors have the drawback of dealing with a lot of stresses under load (weight), they also have tires spinning at different speeds when turning so 4 wheel drive has complications. Steering parts on 2 wheel drive tractors are a common point of failure, especially with a loader.

Skid steers like the Life track and most heavy equipment can use straight shafts and axles so they handle weight very well, though turning stresses are high. Turning radius is the best of any system.

Articulated steering has lots of advantages and very few disadvantages, high speed performance is more difficult. However the big one is that it is nearly impossible without power assist, manual steering is nearly impossible with articulated. They can handle weight as well as skid steers because they have fixed axles, and 4 wheel drive is easy because front and rear wheels follow the same path. Basically it is really easy to make a 4 wheel drive tractor this way, simply a hydraulic ram for steering. Almost all 4 wheel drive tractors today are articulating and of course all heavy loaders as well.

There were crab steering tractors back in the day :gaah:


----------



## LincTex

Sometimes I sure as hell hate computers and browsers. I had a really nice, informative reply typed up and then firefox (actually invincea) crashed.

I will summarize, after removing tact: 
1) The lifetrac is an under-engineered piece of crap that costs way too much for what you will get out of it, either from a utility and usability stand point, and longevity. 

2) Any number of tractors ranging from 30 to 60 years old that can be bought for under $4000 will pull the lifetrac sideways up a steep hill and do it for 20 years without complaining, and at half the cost.

3) A 70's 4WD pickup can be bought for under $1000, cut-up and re-welded and voila, articulating tractor for under $3000. The power steering set-up/parts can be bought very inexpensively from an old combine.


----------



## Tirediron

I find that a lot of people without an agricultural background look at tractor and implement age from a automobile stand point, as in a 40 year old car or truck is likely to be worn beyond use. A tractor is mostly heavy components, built for strength and where heavy is good, the opposite of the automotive world. Designed obsolescence wasn't a part of the ag world until much later. A new tractor IE a 120horse John Deere isn't a whole lot better than one built in the 70 s, (30 series and on) The new one have more operator conveniences and have proprietary electronics. If I bought a new tractor it would be a Kobota because of their simplicity. Yesterday afternoon , I went to do some repair on a 1957 JD 820, this tractor spent it's productive life in northwestern Alberta on a farm in summer and in the bush selective logging in winter, it has had the main diesel rebuilt twice, so probably around 30000 hours (3 "normal" lives) It has had some improvements made to the power steering,(full hydraulic) with off the shelf parts and a few well thought out add ons. 
My point here is that an old tractor is a good investment if you can keep utility in mind, not creature comforts. I personaly think that a small holder would he better off with 2(or more) older similar, tractors instead of spending a pile of cash on a new machine or trying to build something from parts. One tractor could be kept in basicly stock configuration, the other modified to handle a loader or if you were able to find an industrial version with an industrial axle and loader, just make the loader tractor steering better. for the price of the parts for a lifetrac you could probably have 2 40 to 60 horsepower tractors that would last as long as you need them to. If you want to build stuff, build or rebuild implements and attachments for the tractors that is where the savings would probably be.


----------



## LincTex

Buying a machine that needs work will always be cheaper than buying something that is pristine. Those are where your deals are, but you need to know what is easy to fix and what isn't.

'49 Farmall C - $300 with flat tires and a huge paper wasp nest inside the intake manifold. Fixed cheaply and now is a workhorse. (Word of mouth)

1980 Deere 850 - $1200 with FEL. Cracked cylinder head and apart, but all parts in a 5 gallon bucket. Bought used cyl head for $450 from tractor salvage, reused all the gaskets. Used for several years before selling (with new paint job) for $4500 (ebay)

Yanmar YM2000 20 HP 2-banger - $500, victim of starting fluid abuse. Two used pistons, and new rings and bearings for under $100. Handy little machine, Japanese quality. (ebay)

YTO (Chang Chai) 18 HP 1-lung diesel - $400, like new. PO didn't know there was a compression release lever that is used to get it cranked. He thought it had engine damage. Class 1 3-pt hitch, all cast iron like a really big garden tractor. (craigslist)

1964 International 2404 industrial - $1200 with a mega-stout Model 2000 FEL, had a bad water pump. Nice heavy tractor for its size. Looks rough and cobbled wiring and fuel line but mechanically sound.(ebay)


----------



## LincTex

I couldn't help but add this:

http://www.matermacc.it/pdf/msj_eng.pdf
MaterMacc MSJ self-propelled one row planter. 
Notice on page 2 "Horse drawn" is an option (even though you STILL need the engine to run the fan, LOL!)

They have a COOL little air seeder, too:









http://www.matermacc.it/eng/area_download.html


----------



## LincTex

cowboyhermit said:


> What I have been thinking about for years is a "plot harvester". I used to work at a facility that had these and they seemed AWESOME. Not geared to efficiency in terms of speed obviously (they are tiny compared to a combine) but well made for years of use and incredibly efficient at separating and not losing grain. Seems perfect for a modern homestead or a shtf one.


This is the "original plot harvester"... It was basically an "All Crop 40" main portion (about 48" cutting bar), with an Allis "G" rear section (10HP Continental N62 engine) set on top to provide motion. The thresher was powered by a large sinle cylinder Wisconsin or Briggs & Stratton mounted on the right side.

The Army Corps of Engineers was involved with the design. Check the website out.

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t298/growerguy/AllisChalmers40SP.jpg









http://www.allischalmers.com/forum/...0&title=allis-chalmers-self-propelled-combine

http://www.aumannauctions.com/featured_pic.php?pid=1212&pic=80


----------



## dawnwinds58

We have small diesel tractors and gas ATVs. We also have a pair of stocky horses and some horse drawn implements. We plan on getting a pair of dairy steers to raise for oxen as our "low speed, high torque" power. Specifically the transplanter/tobacco setter will be set up for them. The only new tool we're drooling over is the Plotmaster.

http://www.plotmasters.com/plotmaster.html






It reduces fuel usage and time spent in completing several steps in one pass for the planting of field crops, corn, sorghum, oats, and we're betting we can even rig it for beans and pumpkins. (We raise pumpkins for sale and as a winter food for our Red Wattle hogs.

We want one BADLY!!!! *TWITCHES* :crossfinger:


----------



## LincTex

dawnwinds58 said:


> The only new tool we're drooling over is the Plotmaster.


I only watched the first minute of that video!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Anyone with a real farming background will probably be laughing so hard that about a minute is all we can take!!!! Maybe I'll have to go back some day and watch some more!


----------



## cowboyhermit

Ok, I watched the whole thing. I guess what they are trying to demonstrate by driving like idiots is that it was specifically made to be pulled fast and over rough terrain, this would be an advantage with atvs in the bush though it can also be pulled behind anything.

The simple tandem disc with a seed box and harrow should work imo, we plant grain this way even today on occasion. Though we use a spreader first, then disc, then harrow more thoroughly. I have no idea of the price vs other equipment but the concept seems sound.


----------



## dawnwinds58

In truth I'm not sure if that was an insult or not about the "real farming background". Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one and I'll just keep my 35 acres and stock running as I always have.


----------



## cowboyhermit

Everyone has a different viewpoint on this stuff, that's a good thing imo. 
LincTex has a thing for old tractors
Sounds like you are pretty passionate about what you like as well, I think that's great.
Nothing wrong with discussing the pros and cons of each and in the end we all get to use whatever works for us


----------



## Tirediron

dawnwinds58 said:


> In truth I'm not sure if that was an insult or not about the "real farming background". Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one and I'll just keep my 35 acres and stock running as I always have.


I seriously think that the demo video would be a lot better and more professional if the implements weren't flying threw the air between clumps, kind of messes up the precision of a planter if the seed is in the air instead of at the metering bar. The all in one modular concept is great, I just doubt that many people would use the implements like the video depicts. At least not if you want them to last.


----------



## dawnwinds58

I already have one family member with NASCAR delusions after he mounts our old International. I can double plow a field on half the fuel, and with less damage, than he can plowing once. May take more time, but I sort of commune with the soil rather than attack it. 

We figured how much less time it would take, and how fuel use would reduce if we could adapt this system to specific crops in our rotational fields which have great, well-worked soil.

It would provide more time and money for things we like to do more,
like FISHIN'!! :woohoo:


----------



## LincTex

dawnwinds58 said:


> In truth I'm not sure if that was an insult or not about the "real farming background".


LOL, I'm sorry - I am not trying to offend. Seriously, though - that video was insane. I would NEVER treat planting equipment like that! TiredIron nailed my sentiments with his comment:



Tirediron said:


> I seriously think that the demo video would be a lot better and more professional if the implements weren't flying through the air between clumps, kind of messes up the precision of a planter if the seed is in the air instead of at the metering bar.


I just couldn't stand to watch something being tossed around so bad.

Yep, We always used a disc in front in front of our 12' drills for many years (until we moved up to two 10's). Dad says grandpa used to pull a 6 foot drill behind a 4 bottom plow for Flax. I have never heard of anyone else doing that?!?

I do like their design concept and thought, and I think anyone could build something similar. Notice their seed metering brush is powered by a 12v gearmotor (versus ground wheel driven). Great for food plots, but if you were planting a field you would have to be careful to have the *exact same speed* so the rate wouldn't change. You could do that with a tractor with a governor, but I would never try it with a four wheeler (or anything without a real throttle lever that stays where you place it). What does something like that cost - dare I ask? (More than $5000?)

Here a couple others: 
http://www.growbrutebucks.com/equipment/go/
BruteBusterII HD Atv Foodplot Planter

http://www.kascomfg.com/kasco_drills_plotters_choice.html
Plotter's Choice

Dawnwinds58, I am now really glad you mentioned the plotmaster (though I still won't buy one, since I can build a better version). I didn't realize that there were several options available. What is amazing to me is that a product made to fill the need for hunters can be considered a serious tool for food production for preppers.


----------



## LincTex

Shoot.... this one is only *$1500*. I wouldn't try to build one if I could buy one that cheap!

http://us.yakaz.com/posts/0005rr8vo3gnunps
Frontier FP1204 Plot Master
It has a 4` harrow, box seed, and drag chain. Electric lift. 
Lawn Equipment Solutions. 1721 Athens Hwy Grayson, GA 30017

Doing a ggogle search turned up quite a few for sale across the country...

NOW I just need a McCormick 42-R combine and I'm all set!!!!


----------



## LincTex

dawnwinds58 said:


> It reduces fuel usage and time spent in completing several steps in one pass. We want one BADLY!!!!


OK, so you have piqued my curiosity for the plotmaster. I can see it as a tool used for maybe an acre or less. Any more than that, probably not.

Keep in mind, there *ARE* other solutions.... you just have to use your creativity!

Since I have a pretty darn nice disc already, and a whole bunch of Danish S-tines laying around, I though I could maybe duplicate the thing with little effort. Bowhunter311 summed it up nicely, so here is his take:

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1214763


bowhuntr311 said:


> Yea I gotta agree, if your 12acres is all in one field dont bother with an ATV. However, please read the rest of my reply {it may get lengthy} I do consider myself an "ATV Farmer." I have used the King Kutter disc and the HS Disc (Tartergate); and some off brand flip disc. Discs, Mowers, Seeders, Tillers, Cultipackers, Rollers, Diggers, you name it, I've tried pulling it with a wheeler. I have never used the actual plot master so take what I have to say how you want.
> 
> Can I ask what price you can buy one of these for? I have been looking on Google Shopping quick and cant seem to find any of the plotmasters for less than $2500.
> 
> Plotmaster = Disc, Seeder, Roller, Drag (am I missing anything) = $2500
> 
> Separate:
> Disc - $900 (Local Farm Supply)
> NICE - Electric seeder atv rack mount - $160
> Roller - Swisher 48in - $300
> Drag - Get a bedspring $25.
> TOTAL = $1400
> 
> My suggestion is to get them in separate items; why?
> 
> Your not going to be making one pass from sod to seeded to packed and off the field. With a disc, even in previous tilled ground your going to have to make at least 2 passes. On sod you may be looking at 5-7passes. Then your going to have to drag it flat 1 pass. Then spread your seed, then pack it in. You cant seed with this thing and roll it flat at the same time. The spreader is going to throw your seed well behind the machine and behind the roller, so you have to make at least 2passes just to seed and pack. And the roller on this thing is small and useless unless you filled it with sand then it still couldn't way more than 150lbs. Barely going to press the dirt, more going to just roll on top. So that's why I WOULDN'T get the plotmaster.
> 
> The disc has adjustable angle gangs and you can adjust the large knobby tires for depth so it doesn't pull so hard in good tilled dirt. It does have cultipacker attachment and a spot to carry a special chainlink drag they make for it. The cultipacker for it is about as expensive as the disc itself. This is by far the best disc on the market for an ATV. http://www.tartergate.com/switch.php...site=tt&emp=tt
> 
> Roller VS Cultipacker. I suggest getting the cultipacker over a roller because of the small nubs on the wheels. You have a better chance of pushing your seed into the earth slightly farther and you don't create a crust near as much with as a roller. Store bought cultipackers are expensive, I found a 48in wing piece laying in the back of a grove at one of my neighbors farms. He gave it to me for free, needed a little work and once I find some running gear for it I'm going to make it a flip style so it has wheels under it. Maybe someone else can chime in on why cultipackers are better than rollers.


And, pretty much the way I feel about implements designed for ATV's.....



M.Magis said:


> You can get a tractor and proper equipment for far less than a "big" ATV, which WILL NOT handle 12 acres of tillage. Here's some advice on ATV implements, under built and over priced. Have fun. The arrogance of some people who admittedly don't know what they're talking about is mind boggling.


----------



## cowboyhermit

Like I mentioned before I have pretty much no experience pulling machinery with an atv, I know people who have but not on a large scale (acres). As others have mentioned there are certainly some drawback to using an atv, basically their drivetrain is not suited to slow work.

The one exception I have seen is professional fence builders using machines with more than 4 wheels, these new post pounders are HEAVY and they pull one plus posts up and down hills that trucks can't make. They tell me they haven't had significant issues. I think that atvs like the Gator or the Mule were designed more with work in mind than a typical 4 wheeler.

I do have some experience with a ppt(passepartout), Nodwell, (hard to call these atvs) and Argos these units are made for WORK (the argo a bit less but they are amphibious) but are not especially low maintenance and are not cheap to buy.


----------



## LincTex

cowboyhermit said:


> .... but are not especially low maintenance and are not cheap to buy.


Pretty much for all ATV's. 
I can't imagine how people talk themselves into spending what they do!


----------



## cowboyhermit

LincTex said:


> Pretty much for all ATV's.
> I can't imagine how people talk themselves into spending what they do!


Well with the Nodwell the only real comparison would be to a cat although the Nodwell will go places a cat wouldn't think of so I think it is just a shortage of options. The ppt fills the same role of being a workhorse (on a much smaller scale) with a simple off the shelf small engine, the tracks are no comparison to the Nodwell. The price is high but the capabilities are extreme, above what most people would ever used. We have a Nodwell at our place that was from a company that shut down when oil was cheap but to buy one new









The Argo is basically just an atv that can go anywhere.


----------



## Tirediron

If someone was to buy an ATV for just pulling implements it would be a terrible investment, A ford 8 n is a much better investment, but a ford 8 n kind of sucks for chasing cows.


----------



## cowboyhermit

Tirediron said:


> If someone was to buy an ATV for just pulling implements it would be a terrible investment, A ford 8 n is a much better investment, but a ford 8 n kind of sucks for chasing cows.


I've chased cows in high gear with a tractor  good way to break a spindle.
Chasing cows with a Nodwell or PPT would be funny though, top speed 5-10mph, well fun for the cows anyways.

I don't even have a quad at my place right now, most guys use them all the time but I usually walk or use the truck. I have access to them when I need, which is rare these days.
I know someone thinking about selling a gator though and I am considering it, he did all his hay raking with a side delivery rake (the kind with a wheel at the hitch) with it until he retired. Can't see myself doing that but I have pulled one behind the truck for hundreds of acres.

That gives me a thought, I wonder how many people know what kind of work a truck can do, way more than an atv. There is someone I know who can drive a truck but not a tractor. They have a 1980's ford f150 4x4 with beefed up suspension and a 351 and an AUTOMATIC transmission with a little add on cooler, so not a whopper of a truck by any means. He paid 3500 and used the truck for around 10 years HEAVILY. Now, most mechanics would tell you to never attempt what he did but farmers will be farmers:nuts:

He moved literally thousands of bales, (feeding around 100head of cows in central Alberta winters) with a poke and winch.
He raked hundreds of acres of hay with a side delivery rake.
GET THIS harrowed a quarter section with 45foot harrows
He even hauled grain in a fertilizer spreader

I am sure there are other ridiculous things he did with the old truck but the harrows are a good example of what people would say was simple not possible. He just locked it in 4low, watched the temp and did it. Truck still runs, though a bit worse for wear, he upgraded a few years back and does almost the same with the new one, at least it's an f250 this time

Not long ago here the idea of pulling a post pounder with a truck was considered crazy, now anything else is strange:dunno:


----------



## Bobbb

I saw a video from a guy who took an old beat up truck, stripped much of the body work and used it as a log skidder on his property. The thing look pretty nasty but it sure hauled logs good. Can't find the video because I can't remember any identifying particulars that would bring it up in Google.


----------



## cowboyhermit

I can see it working as a skidder, obviously depending on terrain and weight. When people first started handling large round bales (1500-2000lbs) with pickups in our area everyone said they wouldn't last, but other than springs a truck does really well. Most half-tons we use get a leaf spring upgrade quickly, or airbags (airbags are so much nicer but more time and money). Takes a pretty big tractor to handle those kinds of loads in rough fields and over any sort of distance the truck is going to be so much faster. Tight in the yard or loading a trailer the tractor is much better.

I wonder how common hydra decks are in other places, not too fond of them myself but others swear by them.


----------



## LincTex

Trucks are fine for light duty work, but they don't have very large diameter tires (surface area contact patch) nor do they ever really have enough weight over the rear end. I can see pulling a hay rake because the draw isn't much. Pulling a 45' harrow puts the pickup in the same "longevity duty" class as the ATV -yes, it can do that work but not for very long (meaning you prob won't get 10+ years of that particular action out of it) and the fuel burn rate will really be quite high.

The very earliest JEEP CJ2's had been advertised with being somewhat "tractor capable", but in reality pulling a rake was about all they could really do.

http://www.fourwheeler.com/featuredvehicles/129_1205_plowing_with_the_1946_willys_cj2a/


> It all sounded great on paper, but in actual farm use the idea created by some of the advertising &#8230; that a Jeep could replace a tractor &#8230; proved somewhat delusional. It was proven both by farmers and test agencies.


----------



## Tirediron

the military surplus jeeps had all kinds of accessories built for them, they sort of worked for really small holders, Farmers are famous for pressing things into services that they were never meant for, A local company built a round bale handler that fit in the back of a "3/4" ton pickup, it was fine in the 900# bale days you could get away with hauling 2 bales, now that bales are upwards of 1500# it is a bit dicey, the amount of fuel used using a pickup in place of a chore tractor would pay for a small tractor


----------



## cowboyhermit

LincTex, my first thoughts on pulling 45ft diamond harrows with a 1/2ton was :nuts: but in reality when I really looked at it, with the truck in 4low and watching temperatures I couldn't actually see any excessive wear. Engine and transmission temp were fine, differentials just warm, transfer case was a bit hot (weakest link imo especially the aluminum pos on those trucks) With softer ground there would be some issues.
He had minimal weight on the truck but it is really easy to add some if necessary.
There was no indication of premature wear so it's impossible to tell how long until something would have failed. My point is though, 160acres of harrowing is a lot of work, on a small homestead that would be many years of harrowing, ignoring all the other stuff he did with the truck.

Tirediron, we move full sized 1500+ bales with the trucks all winter, the majority of our feeding is with a truck. As to the economy of it we have looked at this 6 ways to Sunday and it comes out a wash with the pickup truck a little ahead on longer distances and in cold weather.

With tractors we have broken spindles and rebuilt loader rams, on the other hand winches are hit and miss and springs need to be beefed up on anything less than a 1ton. Other than that since we first put a poke on a truck 20 odd years ago we have moved thousands of bales and haven't seen any problems.
If moving bales more than 100yards or so the truck is much faster and so fuel consumption is similar.


----------



## Tirediron

I used to bale graze (stand the bales on end with the strings off) our herd, so I usually only fed once a week depending on the weather, I would load 7 bales on a trailer , and take them to the feed ground, then unload them with the front end loader, after the cows were used to this method it really saved fuel and the need to start an engine every day. Heifers and new cows we feed in a stanchion type manger , forking feed to them several times a day to get them calm around people, well just us they usually don't like strangers. We do use a Jiffy bale handler on a pickup for bunching bales to load or "stack"


----------



## cowboyhermit

I really try to avoid starting tractors daily if I can, especially in the winter and especially if I'm going to start the truck to go to town anyways.
We have self unloading bale trailers and have fed with them like you mentioned, works well. Where most of our cows are there are steep hills, so in the fall and the spring we unroll bales down them, the truck is so much quicker and easier if we want to take them throughout the pasture.

Tirediron, do you feel the Jiffy bale handler (assuming it's a hydraulic unit like I've seen) is worth it? Opinions of those I know are mixed. I don't like how expensive the parts and pump supposedly are. Have you used any of the attachments?
For bales I find the poke and winch are fast,easy and relatively cheap depending on the winch.

The main reason I wanted to mention what a truck can do is because I was pretty skeptical of how they would last, what costs would be, and what they were capable of doing but after all these years I feel like I have been proven wrong:dunno:


----------



## dawnwinds58

LincTex said:


> Shoot.... this one is only *$1500*. I wouldn't try to build one if I could buy one that cheap!
> 
> http://us.yakaz.com/posts/0005rr8vo3gnunps
> Frontier FP1204 Plot Master
> It has a 4` harrow, box seed, and drag chain. Electric lift.
> Lawn Equipment Solutions. 1721 Athens Hwy Grayson, GA 30017
> 
> Doing a ggogle search turned up quite a few for sale across the country...
> 
> NOW I just need a McCormick 42-R combine and I'm all set!!!!


Yup...that's a full size plotmaster for tractor.

If we were the kind of farm which made its income on harvest the smaller one would have no use, but we aren't. The farm is our food. The "our" is me, my husband, two daughters, one son-in-law, 7 grandchildren, and a brother. The majority of our land is grazing for horses, grazing Red Wattle hogs, a few Nubian milk goats, a couple of beef steers, Pilgrim geese, Fawn and White Runner ducks, and Buff Orpington chickens.

We plant 4 acres in rotation. No chemicals have been used on this place since 1996. Our livestock is key in keeping it that way. The hogs ARE our tillers, the geese keep it weed free during planting. The ducks are deadly bug hunters. The chickens are kept out of the garden but work the perimeter for bugs and seeds. Feed buying is mostly on either end of the cycle. We'll buy a locally mixed finisher to add to the Hickory King corn we raise for final fattening. We also buy a local mill's game bird start when we're incubating/brooding a larger than normal egg production.

Average new birds are started by the few olive egger hens we have which are wonderfully broody and protective of their chicks. Their eggs can easily be recognized from the brown laying Buffs and white Runner eggs.

You just can't have grandkids on a farm without offering "Green Eggs and Ham". :laugh:


----------



## Tirediron

cowboyhermit said:


> I really try to avoid starting tractors daily if I can, especially in the winter and especially if I'm going to start the truck to go to town anyways.
> We have self unloading bale trailers and have fed with them like you mentioned, works well. Where most of our cows are there are steep hills, so in the fall and the spring we unroll bales down them, the truck is so much quicker and easier if we want to take them throughout the pasture.
> 
> Tirediron, do you feel the Jiffy bale handler (assuming it's a hydraulic unit like I've seen) is worth it? Opinions of those I know are mixed. I don't like how expensive the parts and pump supposedly are. Have you used any of the attachments?
> For bales I find the poke and winch are fast,easy and relatively cheap depending on the winch.
> 
> The main reason I wanted to mention what a truck can do is because I was pretty skeptical of how they would last, what costs would be, and what they were capable of doing but after all these years I feel like I have been proven wrong:dunno:


Our feed truck is a '72 GMC 2500, is has had the jiffy on it since the early eighties, if treated right the trucks live, the jiffy has been great, it was in rough shape when we got it, we did a bunch of work on it then, it has had one new pump and some hoses and a few cylinder repacks, but over all ver trouble free. I don't believe in rolling bales out for cows to pi$$ and $hit on, I just stand them on their end and let the cows look after themselves. everybody tells me that it is a waste of feed, but our cows do better on less bales (cause they don't eat the stuff that they don't want and don't need to waste energy processing crappy feed.


----------



## cowboyhermit

We make our cows work and they are the better for it, never see a vet and always calve 90%+. My cows in particular don't normally get any real feed until after Christmas and that was considered "unthinkable" this far north. We have had really good results with unrolling out in the field, there are tricks to make sure they don't lay on it so we don't have much problems with that. We set bales out without feeders too but actually we have more problems with them ruining the feed that way:dunno:
Your experience with the hydraulic deck is similar to what I have heard, there was one we were looking at a while back but I just couldn't see the advantage over a winch that I can pick up anywhere and swap out in minutes.


----------



## Tirediron

The only advantage of the bale handler is being able to carry 2 bales, If your winch system works for you stick with it. as you said it is simple has easily sourced parts. feed use or efficiency is an eye of the beholder thing, I find that standing a single bale doesn't work , they need lots of choice. our stanchion fed cattle get to "pick over the feed given them, what ever they push away gets piled up, then taken to their loafing area, where they pick through it when they feel the need for roughage, we feed about the opposite of your program, Our cows have access to hay all year, even when they are up to their bellies in grass Perhaps our cattle are spoiled ???


----------



## cowboyhermit

Tirediron, sounds like you have a good system, nothing wrong with spoiling your cows if it works for you Calving in June has allowed us to save a quite a bit of feed because they get grass for most of the last trimester. We do a little of everything in terms of feeding because we have multiple herds and such (not a huge operation, just overcomplicated)
The hauling 2 bales was the only thing that made me consider it, that and those grain roller things, and a guy I know who uses his for dumpsters. But with big bales and as rough as some of our fields and yards are I figure one bale is enough


----------



## Tyler520

A company called Boaz makes some pretty cool mini combines - however, I think they are based in China...and I don't trust doing business with Chinese companies, or the quality of Chinese equipment and machinery

http://www.eqmachinery.com/

Their newest models are completely self-propelled, but I think they have some older models that are walk-behind.

These types of machinery are really popular in China due to budget and land area constraints.

I am unpleasantly surprised that someone like John Deere hasn't developed a series of attachments for small-scale agriculture for their sub-compact utility tractors yet...could be a really popular product(s) in today's society.


----------



## LincTex

Tyler520 said:


> I am unpleasantly surprised that someone like John Deere hasn't developed a series of attachments for small-scale agriculture for their sub-compact utility tractors yet...could be a really popular product(s) in today's society.


Popular? Maybe - but probably not profitable enough to make the R&D costs worthwhile...


----------



## smaj100

Linc how much R&D would really be needed? I mean they already have 100's of on hand very reliable and functioning systems in place now and over the history of the co, not just deere. I'm not an engineer but wouldn't just miniaturizing the equipment work?


----------



## LincTex

smaj100 said:


> I'm not an engineer but wouldn't just miniaturizing the equipment work?


To a degree. But I'll bet the bean counters say if you can't sell at least 1,000 units, then forget it. Expect prices to be upwards of $20,000- $25,000 for a half-scale Deere 9600 with a Yanmar Tier III diesel!

It's much cheaper and easier to find an old 40's- 50's machine and fix it up.


----------



## Tyler520

LincTex said:


> To a degree. But I'll bet the bean counters say if you can't sell at least 1,000 units, then forget it. Expect prices to be upwards of $20,000- $25,000 for a half-scale Deere 9600 with a Yanmar Tier III diesel!
> 
> It's much cheaper and easier to find an old 40's- 50's machine and fix it up.


Depends of need and purpose - regarding profitability to John Deere: Toro makes machines similar to this discussion (Dingo series) peaking out at $25K.

I'd bet a market analysis, and some conservative value engineering (rather than nickel and diming, like some people resort to) would prove that a line of machinery could and would be successful - particularly if the cultural interest in self-reliance continues.


----------

