ploughmaster

The Sumo Trio is hardly in the same class as either the Solo or Topdown though  .  It is a lightweight machine by comparison, for doing a lightweight job on light to medium soils. 

I've not come across one of them. \

All trailed -  any machine that length and weight will be as they would be too much for most three point linkages (even the smallest 3.3m Solo weighs over 6 tonnes), and the overhang would probably mean needing a lift capacity at the link ends of Lord knows what (20 tonnes??), plus you would need a front weight the size of Bedfordshire to keep it on the ground. . 

True, but I was thinking in terms of mainstream, properly licensed models, rather than a conversion  . 

I had wondered where they would go for this years NFTS model, and had rather hoped they would do one of these at some point.  Don't think we've had one in 32nd before.  This is one I will definately be having (regardless of whether certain people think it's rubbish or not  )

The official announcement and pics for the toy farmer models is usually during April I think?

It is physically impossible to mount the cultivator to the JCB. The rear arms aren't long enough so the cultivator would sits tight against the rear wheel if you could get it connected.

I think you will also find that there have been several Siku implements that wont fit certain Siku tractors too, particularly among the older items (not to mention a couple of UH models with different hitch widths!)

Where/what is 'Splading'?  What is happening there and when?

...on a mounted plough, many depth wheels are on the side of the beam [although there are also plenty with it mounted on the end of the beam too..] but they do less to override the effects of draught on the tractor...

Just a theory of course.... 

Which is of course how draft control works - transferring weight from the implement on to the rear wheels of the tractor and an equivalent amount from the front of the tractor to maintain grip and traction.

If you let all the weight down onto the depth wheel, it becomes a deadweight pull and you don't get the grip.  You can hold the weight on the tractor quite effectively no matter where the wheel is mounted.

And of course, correctly set up, the tractor should normally take most of the weight of a fully mounted plough, with the depth wheel only working to hold the plough out to the set depth. If you put all the weight down on the wheel, the draft control will not work as effectively (it will have to move the arms further to take the weight off the plough and transfer it to the tractor rear wheels) so you don't get the extra grip, and you will probably have to use a bigger, heavier tractor to compensate (which is in fact what a great many farms are doing  ). Hence why the first farm I worked on 30 years  ago used a 146hp tractor on a 6 furrow reversible plough, but you now see most 6 furrow ploughs on a 200 -300hp monstrosity!

In spite of the scare stories in the press, the laws on photography in the UK remain the same, and many of the reported incidents are due to over reaction by members of the public (or sometimes the police) who do not know what the law says.

The fact is that you are free to take photographs of most things in Britain. Obviously military sites are a no go (though there are plenty of aircraft photographers who regularly take pictures from outside RAF bases, and rarely have problems (and it usually only takes the form as a freindly warning from the RAF police when they do).

In general, (apart from specifically prohibited areas) there is no law against taking photographs of anything (or anybody) on public property, but it is polite if you are able to ask permission first. 

There is no law against photographing private property, or a person or object on private property when the photograph is taken from public property. 

You do need to have permission to take photographs from private property.  However, if you are trespassing, all the property owner can do is ask you to leave.  If you refuse, there is little more they can do unless you are committing a crime or causing damage (NB. if you have taken a photograph whilst trespassing, it could be invoked as breaching privacy laws).

This link may be useful to read: http://www.photographywebsite.co.uk/photography-and-the-law-c638.html

I think that a lot of the problem is the increasing prevalent lack of knowledge of tyres and traction, and the basic principles of weight transfer.  Years ago, most farmers, managers and tractor drivers seemed to understand these things (often without realising it - it just came naturally).  Nowadays, all that most people think about is power. 

Wider tyres don't really help with grip, whilst you get a greater area in contact with the soil, the weight is too spread out to allow the friction between soil and tyre to resist the torque.  Setting the correct tyre pressure and some extra weight will help, and water ballast is more effective than adding scrap iron to the tractor (but isn't as easy to remove when you want the tractor for a lighter job - it also needs filling with a calcium chloride solution to stop it freezing, which then creates a potential pollution problem when you take it out or get a leak!).

With mounted equipment, you also need to understand the basics of weight transfer; the rear wheels are the pivot point between the plough and the tractor; as the tractor takes the weight of the plough as the draft control works, it effectively transfers weight from the front of the tractor onto the rear wheels.  A relatively small amount of extra weight on the front can make a lot of difference.  In most circumstances, there is very little point adding extra weight to the rear wheels when using fully mounted equipment.

Semi-mounted and trailed equipment doesn't give this weight transfer effect, so you have to take a different approach, and for these you need to add weight to the rear as well as to the front.

Correctly tyred, with the right pressure for the weight on them, and the tractor correctly ballasted, a 150hp two wheel drive tractor will be capable of pulling the same draft as a 150hp four wheel drive! (NIAE at Silsoe proved this very effectively in the early 80's). 

To go back to the original question; the 135hp for the 7 furrow semi mounted sounds perfectly reasonable, but the 261 for the 6 furrow mounted sounds rather high, and I would think (as has already been suggested) that it is a case of needing a heavier tractor to safely control the weight of the plough (and the need for greater lift capacity).

Depending on the soil type, conditions and ploughing depth, I would normally expect to see 6 furrows on a 150hp tractor.  Bigger tractors often don't pull more in proportion to the extra power because with the bigger machine comes extra weight, which takes horsepower to move it around (eg. I have seen estimates that a Quadtrac 535 uses around 150hp just to move itself about, without doing any work!!).  Interestingly, the furrow width has quite a small influence by comparison to the number of furrows - i.e. in the same soil at the same depth, 6 x 14" furrows will take less pulling than 7 x 12" furrows.

I don't know if LANTRA still do the 'Tyres and Traction' training courses, but they are very well worth doing if you have the opportunity.  I did one about 20 years ago, given by Martin McAllister who was one of those involved in the research done at Silsoe in the late 70's/early 80's, so it was all from the 'horses mouth' as it were. The principles are still the same.

They are excellent trailers, very well built from high quality steel and last for years. The farm I was on until 4 years ago had a 14 tonner that they bought new in 1985.  At 20 years old, and having been used for carting beet as well as grain, it still looked in better nick than most trailers do at less than half that age.  The next farm I went to had a 12 tonner of the same age, which was in similarly good condition.

I took it to A & H for them to fit an easy-sheet and when Mrs Armstrong looked at the date her comment was "he makes them too well!" 

Their 'factory' (if you can call it that!) is just off the A17 between Cranwell and Leadenham, and is well hidden behind some trees.

For any of you still using the old over floor metal grain drying ducts, they used to have several hydraulic presses they hired out which made straightening the bent ones a very quick and easy job. They aren't mentioned on the website though, so I don't know if they still have them.

From the prices he got for the last lot, you would need more than you would get for your arms and legs to afford them all (and that is not meant as a derogatory comment towards your arms and legs by the way  ). 

I wouldn't mind the Ford New Holland set (I am only missing the blue Glencoe cultivator), but there's no way I would rate it at anything like what the last one went for.

I wonder how many of each he actually has??    It isn't beyond the bounds of possibility he has come by a trade case of each. 

A certain member on here (from Battle  ) similarly turned up a significant number of a previously hens teeth rare olive brown coloured Britains LWB Land Rovers a few years ago (along with some metallic blue muck spreaders, green chassis Bamfords balers and LWB safari Land Rovers in grey and black).

G&M sold them at £35 new in 2004, so they've gained a little    US price at the time would have been around £35 dollars (for some reason US stuff always seems to be priced in pounds over here at about the same figure as thr US price in dollars, regardless of the exchange rate  \

The trouble with buying from the US is that judging from the shipping rates to Europe I have seen from most US sellers, there would be at least $20 (or more!) to add to the $50 (thats about £13 + £33 = £46)

You then have to allow for UK customs charging 17.5% vat on the total value (including shipping!) over £18 (£28 x 0.175 = £4.90) which takes it to £50.90.

Then there is the Royal Mail/Parcelforce handling charge for collecting the vat on behalf of HM Revenue & Customs; currently £8.00 = £58.90; you can buy them over here for less!

A subsoiler should help aerate soil which air will soon help soil condition and will not destroy worm populations like a plough.

There is a wealth of scientifically backed up evidence that says that subsoiling is nearly as damaging as a plough.  Anything which involves substantial disturbance such as caused by subsoiler 'heave' will be very negative to soil life. Where worm populations are allowed to build up, it is they who tunnel the soil and allow the aeration to take place.  If you are correctly tackled and take care with the land, the kind of compaction that requires deep soil loosening with a subsoiler will not happen in the first place. 

anyone that use's a plough to remove any pans is a twonk and there operators need teaching as need to vary depths a little every year so don't get a pan!

.... we personally find the worst 'pans' are on fields that have been ploughed we have plough pans at ploughing depth' date='[/quote']

Sounds to me as though perhaps it might be your ploughman who is the 'twonk'   

Direct drilling is effectively 'no-till', as there is no prior soil moving operation performed; the seed being drilled straight into the aftermath of the preceding crop  . 

Both G&M and Martyns Farm Models have had one for sale within the last 6 months for £50.

We plough, well ploughed 800 acres last year to try and get rid of blackgrass but unfortunately it didn't work in fair few places so my spraying workload hasn't got any lighter really :'(  and the rest of our ground last year another 1700 was min-tilled.  But anyone that use's a plough to remove any pans is a twonk and there operators need teaching as need to vary depths a little every year so don't get a pan!  Thats what subsoilers are for! We run a 6m vaderstad topdown and don't have problems with pans off it and plough creates more of a pan to start with anyway

You are referring to 'Plough-Pans' which are not what I was referring to.  Pans are any layer of compacted soil and are mostly caused by heavy traffic. If there is panning at less than plough depth (and that's where it usually is in a reduced tillage system), ploughing can make a better job of breaking it up than a subsoiler (which won't work very well at shallower depth).

In a genuine min-till, the main aim is to disturb the minimum amount of soil necessary to build up a permanent tilth in the top few inches of the soil and to allow the worm population to build up (their activity will achieve a far better soil structure than constantly heaving the soil about with heavy equipment (hence why the farm in my example above uses a mole to break pans rather than a subsoiler). 

A major feature of the system is to try to cut out the deep compaction which necessitates the deep cultivations.  This is why it is very important to make a definate distinction between 'Min-Till' and reduced cultivation/non inversion tillage. In the latter, you may still be working to a considerable depth and performing deep soil loosening on a regular basis, and so will not build up that fertile layer in the top few inches, the deeply loosened soil can be more prone to compaction damage too, and more importantly, you won't get as many worms !!

In a system based on the use of a tool such as a Topdown or Solo, you are probably moving the soil to a depth of 12-16", which cannot seriously be considered as minimum tillage under anyones definition!

I did go for an interview on a proper min-till farm a few years ago (didn't get the job though  ). He didn't use a plough at all (didn't possess one) and any panning was broken using a mole drain rather than rifting the land up with a subsoiler. By keeping the soil disturbance to a minimum, he had improved his worm counts by about threefold, and it was they who were doing much of the subsurface cultivation for him!

He kept on top of blackgrass by using a combination of cultivating with a pig-tail type drag to about 3" followed by repeat doses of Glyphosate combined with not drilling wheat until late October. 

For rape, the stubble was barely scratched (about an inch), and the same cultivator was used before beans (to only 5" at  most), 

Most farms that use min-till often use a plough in rotation once every 3 to 5 years to break pans and bury the weed seeds.

It is worth pointing out that a lot a farms that think they are using min-till, are not doing so at all - many of them still use regular subsoiling and heavy cultivation equipment working at significant depths.  They are actually performing what should be referred to a non-inversion tillage which retains all the negatives of ploughing, and allows blackgrass etc to proliferate too  . 

On the john deere has it got the new hitch

I think the only one we know about that will have the new hitch is the MF7480 which isn't out yet.

The new hitch will most likely be phased in as new tractors (ie. complete new castings) are released over the next few years.  I would expect existing tractors and rebadges of existing castings will probably retain the old hitch until they are deleted. 

Nice...... maybe worth re wording??

Why??  It was a simple question, based on the fact that the previous poster always seems to harp on the minus points.

I think it is perfectly valid to ask!  Your comment is uncalled for.

I really don't understand how you work that out at all.  From what I can see in the 2nd picture, the pin appears to fit tight up to the underneath of the main moulding when in the raised position. 

Why are you always so completely negative about everything??

It states "This years show model is made by Britains" - does that mean made and weathered by Britains or is it a code 3 done by someone else?  I only ask because the weathering doesn't look to be done in the same fashion as Britains did on the FTF 7000.

If it is all Britains work, with only 200 available, I bet there won't be many left over after the show 

That looks a very nice model, but at $145/90€, it shouldn't need a paperclip to prop the drawbar up 

I think the 6850 was the standard Ertl issue in the Ertl box, and the 6650 was the version sold in the Britains Elite series.  The 6850 probably isn't rare at all but won't be as common in Europe.

It certainly doesn't merit such a ridiculous price as that!!

As a seller, you would have to be insane to offer paypal on a collection. It is impossible for a seller to prove that it has been collected without tracking numbers, so all a buyer has to do is claim that "it never showed up" and they get a refund and the item.

Under eBay rules you are not permitted to refuse PayPal!!! even for pick-up items. 

However, in most such cases the buyer will want to pay cash anyway, which is why I put:

no PayPal = No buyer protection if the deal goes wrong - admittedly not usually much of a problem with cash on pick-up

Doesn't alter the fact that offering 'collection only' will severely restrict the number of bidders and so the finishing price (as happened last week!)

I have a version & have seen a few others of The New Holland  small square  baler that does not appear to be in the book .

The difference concerns the  " L " shapep peg at very rear of baler where the bale sledge is connected  . There are versions where  the  peg is just a round  peg with a rounded finish

It could be a moulding change (if so, other people must have one I would think), or it could perhaps simply be a case of poor moulding - the plastic didn't make it all the way to the end of the mould.

I have a Massey Ferguson 135 and loader on which the operating lever doesn't stick out of the back of the cab as far as it should (it's about 6mm shorter than usual), which has a similarly rounded end.  Not having seen another like it, I put it down to an incomplete moulding.

I will have a look at my balers sometime and report back!