Re: Standards ARE NOT Farmalls

Posted by Hugh MacKay on June 09, 2007 at 05:28:54 from (216.208.58.134):

In Reply to: Re: Standards ARE NOT Farmalls posted by Rusty Davis on June 09, 2007 at 04:20:32:

Rusty: You do have a good point, all these various tractor configurations were built with specific job in mind. I probably should have used the words, "not worthy of row crop farming".

For example your point about V or high crop tractors, no question they were very job specific. I can't imagine baling hay with one. I know on my own farm, I sometimes wished I had a utility type tractor, especially around those older low ceiling barns. I guess I cured that one when I went to skid steer loaders. But then my 45 hp skidsteer soon pointed out to me, that my Farmall 560 with 2000 loader was not a very worthy loader tractor.

For 30 years my dad and I used farm tractors in our 500 acre woodlot, started of with W4 then H, 300 and 560. This worked well as long as we were the principle operators, however by the late 60s and ever increasing hired operators, work place safety regulators were frowning on tractors operated by hired help in the bush. I went to a John Deere articulated forestry skidder for use in the bush. What I soon discovered was that articulated vehicles were far superior to conventional tractors on heavy tillage equipment like plows, disks and cultivators.

Replies:

• Re: Standards ARE NOT Farmalls Rusty Davis 13:05:18 06/09/07 (0)

Add a Reply Name: E-Mail: Subject: Comments: Optional Link URL: Link Title: Optional Image URL: Email Notification: If you check this box, email will be sent to you whenever someone replies to this message. Your email address must be entered above to receive notification. This notification will be cancelled automatically after 2 weeks.

TRACTOR PARTS	TRACTOR MANUALS

We sell tractor parts!  We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today. [ About Us ]